DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 07/17/2026 for 18672365. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2026 was filed before the mailing date of a final action and is accompanied with one of the options set forth in 37 CFR 1.97. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's substitute drawings, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant's amendments, the objection of claims 3, 12, and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that the claimed limitations are directed toward an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field of "improv[ing] the reading conversion rate and the book push success rate of the books" [pg. 15:3-4], an indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art [MPEP 2106.05(a)]. Applicant asserts that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer by improving a reading conversion rate and book push success rate. Enabling a user to quickly learn information and promoting user interest in books addresses a human user activity is not considered a technical functionality of the computer itself. Aiding or assisting users in their processing of information with a computer is not sufficient in showing an improvement in computer functionality [MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)]. Therefore, the problem addressed by the original disclosure does not improve the functioning of the computer itself per Step 2A, Prong 2 and recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 remains rejected.
In view of Applicant's amendments, the 112 rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., "improv[ing] the reading conversion rate and the book push success rate" [pg. 17:4-6]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claimed limitations barely asserts the "reading conversion rate" as a factor used in characterizing character popularity values but does not provide the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the claim reflects the disclosed improvement.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments essentially consist of reciting the claim language and asserting each reference does not disclose the recited claim language, which are not separate arguments for patentability of the claims and amount to mere allegation that the cited prior art references are deficient. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references neither "distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action" nor presents "arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references" as required in Applicant's reply [see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)]. As noted below, the Office Action presents evidence that stands in direct contrast to Applicant's arguments that Foerster and Price, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest amended limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1 and 14.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation of generating a character image based on contents describing the target character in the book, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, "generating" in the context of this claim encompasses advertising or marketing activities or behaviors of an artist or graphic designer creating an image based on collecting book information from an author.
The limitation of generating a character list having a list type matching a first book type corresponding to a target user among a plurality of candidate character lists based on character popularity values of characters of a same type in a plurality of books, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, "generating" in the context of this claim encompasses commercial interactions of a marketing team creating an advertising campaign including characters matching reading preferences of target users based on researching popularity of characters categorized in the same reading preference.
The limitation of characterizing character popularity based on a number and quality of comments about a character, a number and quality of character discussion posts posted by users, an amount of interactions of the comments or the character discussion posts, or a reading conversion rate of a corresponding book based on the character discussion posts or a plurality of character cards, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, "characterizing" in the context of this claim encompasses commercial interactions of a marketing team collecting and performing market research on characters from social networking system engagement and sales history.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites obtaining character information, displaying, on a first page, a target character list that at least comprises a character card, a first area of the character card, and a second area of the character card. The obtaining and presenting are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. The claim recites additional limitations of character information comprising a character image, a character profile, and book information of a book corresponding to the target character; and information in the character information other than the character image that can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of electronic books [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
The obtaining limitation represents mere data gathering (obtaining the character and book information) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the obtained information is used in the abstract organized human activity of marketing activities or behaviors. The obtaining is recited at a high level of generality and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Similarly, the presenting limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organized human activity, using the computer components as a tool.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a obtaining character information, presenting a character card on a first page, a first area of the character card, and a second area of the character card amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The obtaining, as discussed above, represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The presenting limitation, as discussed above, represents mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
With respect to the obtaining character information, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "electronic recordkeeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"]. With respect to the presenting limitation, the courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. [MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics"].
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also recite limitations of characterizing comprehensive features of the at least one target character with a character label, determining the target character list based on the character label (claims 2, 15); determining the character profile from a plurality of candidate profiles corresponding to the target character based on the first book type and/or the target character list (claims 3, 16); obtaining contents describing the at least one target character, determining an image style identifier, pre-processing contents to generate pre-processed text (claims 11); characters with a character label matching a list type in respective candidate characters; determine a character popularity value based on a reading popularity and/or a discussion popularity (claim 12); determining the at least one target character from a plurality of candidate characters based on a character popularity and a first book type corresponding to a target user (claim 13) that are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components encompassing advertising or marketing activities or behaviors creating a character label, a target character list, candidate character lists, candidate profiles, a first book type, candidate characters, an image style identifier, pre-processed text using pre-processed contents, list type; determining a target user, a target character; collecting character popularity values, target character content, reading popularity, discussion popularity, and a first book type and thus fall within the "Certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite additional limitations including generating the character image by an artificial intelligence image generation model (claim 10); inputting the pre-processed text and the image style identifier into the artificial intelligence generation model to output the character image (claim 11) that are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and additional limitations of a character label; an identity characteristic, a temperament characteristic (claims 2, 15); a character label of the at least one target character, a character type (claim 6); first-level labels, second-level labels, character cards (claims 8, 9); a second character card set, a third character card set (claim 9); contents describing the at least one target character comprising text describing age, gender, identity, appearance features, clothing features, action features, and surroundings of the at least one target character (claim 10) generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of electronic books [MPEP 2106.05(h)] that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims also recite additional limitations of displaying a book page in response to a trigger operation after displaying the character card on the first page (claims 4, 17); displaying a character detail page in response to a trigger operation (claims 5, 18); displaying a second page of a character type in response to a trigger operation in an event that the character card displays a character label (claims 6, 19); displaying a second page in response to a trigger operation, displaying first-level labels, second-level labels, and a first character card set (claim 8); displaying a second character card set in response to a trigger operation, displaying a third character card set on the second page in response to a trigger operation (claim 9) that represent insignificant extra-solution activity including nominal or tangential additions to the claim, amounting to mere data collection or data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of data collection and data display are recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics", "electronic recordkeeping", and "storing and retrieving information in memory"] and remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, linking the use of an exception to a technological field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of an electronic device, processor, memory, and storing and executing instructions, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 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 elements of an electronic device, processor, memory, and storing and executing instructions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of a storage medium, processor, and storing and executing instructions, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 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 elements of a storage medium, processor, and storing and executing instructions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5, 7, 10-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster et al. (US 20160057499 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 9106812 B1).
As to claim 1, Foerster discloses a method for pushing books, comprising:
obtaining character information of at least one target character, wherein the character information at least comprises a character image, a character profile, and book information of a book corresponding to the at least one target character, and the character image is … based on contents describing the at least one target character in the book [Fig. 4, para 0037-0039, 0092, 0118, request character record data (read: character information) of specified character (read: target character) including character profile and identifier of book media in which character is present, note character profile populated from character record data includes character image as shown in Figure 4]; and
displaying, on a first page, a target character list that at least comprises a character card, wherein a first area of the character card is used to display the character image, and a second area of the character card is used to display information in the character information other than the character image [Figs. 4-5, para 0037-0039, 0115, 0118-0119, browsing interface (read: first page) includes list of characters (read: target character list) including character result (read: character card) including character image and text (read: information) included in character profile, note separate elements of character image and text as shown in Figure 4], and
wherein the target character list is a character list having a list type matching a first book type corresponding to a target user among a plurality of candidate character lists [Figs. 4, para 0037, 0080-0082, 0092-0093, display list of characters (read: character list) based on user profile (read: list type) including book behavior (read: first book type) matching user archetype (read: target user) of archetypes (read: candidate character lists)], and the character list, among the plurality of candidate character lists, is generated based on character popularity values of characters of a same type in a plurality of books [para 0068-0069, 0080-0081, 0092, identify list of characters matching archetype cluster (read: type) in respective book media ranked according to comment frequency], and
wherein the character popularity values are characterized by at least one of the following indicators: of interactions of the comments or the character discussion posts [para 0068-0069, 0080-0082, 0118, rank character according to comment frequency across users sharing similar user profile, note strikethrough indicates non-selected alternatives],
However, Foerster does not specifically disclose the character image is generated based on contents describing the target character in the book.
Price discloses the character image is generated based on contents describing the target character in the book [col. 8:34-53, create character image using textual description of character in screenplay, note broadest reasonable interpretation of book includes any literary composition].
Foerster and Price are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the character image as disclosed by Foerster with the generated character image as disclosed by Price with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster as described above to assist in visualizing written content [Price, col. 1:15-31].
As to claim 2, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the character information further comprises a character label, and wherein the character label is used to characterize comprehensive features of the at least one target character [para 0038, 0080-0081, character record includes archetype (read: character label) clustering character attributes (read: comprehensive features)], and
the comprehensive features comprise an identity characteristic and a temperament characteristic [Fig. 2, para 0040-0066, attributes include at least a social butterfly to loner scale (read: identity characteristic) and emotional stability scale (read: temperament characteristic)];
wherein the target character list is determined based on the character label [Fig. 4, para 0118, list of characters including character result match user profile archetype].
As to claim 3, Foerster discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the character profile is determined, based on at least one of the first book type or the target character list, from a plurality of candidate profiles corresponding to the at least one target character [Fig. 4, para 0080-0082, 0118, specify character record data as archetype of stored character archetypes (read: candidate profiles) included in list of characters].
As to claim 5, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying the character card on the first page, in response to a trigger operation on the character image or the character profile in the character card, displaying a character detail page of a target character corresponding to the triggered character card [Figs. 4-5, para 0118-0119, display character interface (read: detail page) for character selected from list item presented in browsing interface].
As to claim 7, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying the character card on the first page, in an event the at least one target character comprises a plurality of target characters, in response to a switching operation on the plurality of character cards, switching a display of the character card of one target character to a display of the character card of another target character [Fig. 4, para 0092-0093, 0118, browsing interface displays list with including character result of stored characters (read: plurality of target characters) and presents results including results for challenge when user selects search filters (read: switching operation)].
As to claim 10, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, … based on the contents describing the at least one target character in the book, wherein the contents describing the at least one target character in the book comprise text describing … action features… of the target character [para 0101-0102, find character dialogue as spoken by character in book].
However, Foerster does not specifically disclose wherein the character image is generated by an artificial intelligence image generation model based on the contents describing the at least one target character in the book, and wherein the contents describing the at least one target character in the book comprise text describing age, gender, identity, appearance features, clothing features, action features, and surroundings of the target character.
Price discloses:
wherein the character image is generated by an artificial intelligence image generation model based on the contents describing the at least one target character in the book [cols. 8:34-53, 12:36-53, module creates character image using textual description of character in screenplay (read: book, note broadest reasonable interpretation of book includes any literary composition), where module interacts with artificial intelligence model to implement analysis],
wherein the contents describing the at least one target character in the book comprise text describing age, gender, identity, appearance features, clothing features, action features, and surroundings of the target character [cols. 2:27-45, 5:43-53, 8:34-53, text description of character includes historical era (read: age), gender, nationality (read: identity), body type (read: appearance feature), clothing, action, scene setting].
Foerster and Price are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the character image and book contents comprising text describing the target character as disclosed by Foerster with the character image generated by an artificial intelligence image generation model and text describing age, gender, identity, appearance features, clothing features, action features, and surroundings as disclosed by Price with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster as described above to assist in visualizing written content [Price, col. 1:15-31].
As to claim 11, Foerster discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the character image is pre-generated by:
obtaining the contents describing the at least one target character in the book, and an [] style identifier corresponding to the book, wherein the [] style identifier is determined based on a book content context of the book [para 0101-0102, determine character trait (read: image style identifier) from character dialogue found in book based on analyzing sentiment analysis of book dialog].
However, Foerster does not specifically disclose wherein a/the "[] style identifier" is a/the "image style identifier"; pre-processing the contents describing the at least one target character in the book to generate pre-processed text; and inputting the pre-processed text and the image style identifier into the artificial intelligence image generation model to output the character image.
Price discloses:
an image style identifier [cols. 10:38-63, indication of genre];
pre-processing the contents describing the at least one target character in the book to generate pre-processed text [cols. 7:45-8:53, analyze textual description of character in screenplay to generate text data for natural language processing]; and
inputting the pre-processed text and the image style identifier into the artificial intelligence image generation model to output the character image [cols. 8:34-53, 10:38-63, 12:36-13:54, generation module creates character image using included content identified by artificial intelligence module receiving analyzed screenplay text and indicated genre].
Foerster and Price are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determined identifier, book content describing the target character, and character image as disclosed by Foerster with the image style identifier, pre-processing book content to generate pre-processed text, and inputting the pre-processed text and image style identifier into the artificial intelligence image generation model to output the character image as disclosed by Price with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster as described above to assist in visualizing written content [Price, col. 1:15-31].
As to claim 12, Foerster discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the characters of the same type are characters with a character label matching a list type in respective candidate characters included in the plurality of books [para 0080-0081, 0092, organize characters into clusters based on archetype (read: label) of hierarchical archetype (read: list type) in respective book media], and a character popularity value is determined based on a reading popularity of a book corresponding to at least one of a candidate character or a discussion popularity of the candidate character [para 0068-0069, 0080-0082, 0118, rank character according to comment frequency (read: discussion popularity) across users sharing similar user profile].
As to claim 13, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one target character is determined from a plurality of candidate characters based on a character popularity and a first book type corresponding to a target user [Fig. 4, para 0068-0070, 0118, request specified character result of stored characters (read: candidate characters) based on character comment frequency (read: popularity) and character books included in user behavior].
As to claim 14, Foerster and Price, combined at least for the reasons above, Foerster discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor; a memory for storing executable instructions; wherein the processor is used to read the executable instructions from the memory and execute the executable instructions to cause the electronic device [para 0145, computing system includes processor executing instructions from memory] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 15, 16, and 18, Foerster and Price, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the electronic device of claim 14 limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 2, 3, and 5, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 20, Foerster and Price, combined at least for the reasons above, Foerster discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores computer programs that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor [para 0145, computing memory stores instructions executed by system processor] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster and Price as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Garcia et al. (US 20150348157 A1).
As to claim 4, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying the character card on the first page, … [and] the book information in the character card [Fig. 4, para 0092, 0118, browsing interface displays character result and identifier of book media in which character is present].
However, Foerster and Price do not specifically disclose in response to a trigger operation on the book information in the character card, displaying a book page corresponding to the book.
Garcia discloses in response to a trigger operation on the book information in the character card, displaying a book page corresponding to the book [Fig. 3A, para 0042, 0045, 0050-0051, selecting (read: trigger information) book image (read: information) displayed in character user interface frame (read: card) displays book content including book cover page].
Foerster, Price, and Garcia are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify presenting the character card on the first page and displayed book information as disclosed by Foerster and Price with the a trigger operation on book information in the character card displaying a book page corresponding to the book as disclosed by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster and Price as described above to facilitate discovery of media content [Garcia, para 0044].
As to claim 6, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying the character card on the first page, in … a character label of the at least one target character, in response to a trigger operation on the character label, displaying a second page of a character type corresponding to the triggered character label [Fig. 4, para 0092, 0118, browsing interface displays character result and presented plot challenge (read: character label) faced by character, where user request (read: trigger operation) searching for plot challenge presents results (read: second page) of characters challenged (read: character type) by requested challenge].
However, Foerster and Price do not specifically disclose in an event that the character card displays a character label of the at least one target character.
Garcia discloses in an event that the character card displays a character label of the at least one target character [Fig. 3A, para 0047-0048, character user interface frame (read: character card) displays publication information (read: character label) of selected character].
Foerster, Price, and Garcia are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the character label of the at least one target character as disclosed by Foerster and Price with the character card displaying a character label of the at least one target character as disclosed by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster and Price as described above to facilitate discovery of media content [Garcia, para 0044].
As to claim 8, Foerster discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying the character card on the first page [Fig. 4, para 0092, 0118, browsing interface displays character result],
in response to a trigger operation to view more controls on the first page, displaying a second page [Fig. 4, para 0092-0093, browser interface presents website including challenge subcategory search filters responsive to user request to drill down into website displaying challenge search filter, note Plot Challenge filter in browser interface as shown in Figure 4]; and
displaying, on the second page, … second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and a first character card set, wherein the first character card set comprises a first portion of the plurality of character cards corresponding to the selected second-level label subordinate to the selected first-level label [Fig. 6, para 0092-0093, browser interface presents website displaying added subcategories and list of characters facing challenge (read: first character card set) requested by user search].
However, Foerster and Price do not specifically disclose displaying, on the second page, first-level labels, second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and a first character card set.
Garcia discloses displaying, on the second page, first-level labels, second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and a first character card set [Figs. 3A-3B, para 0045-0047, 0049, character user interface displays character name text (read: first-level label), event text (read: second-level label), and images associated with selected character (read: first character card set)].
Foerster, Price, and Garcia are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second page displaying second-level labels and a first character card set as disclosed by Foerster and Price with the page displaying first-level labels, second-level labels, and a first character card set as disclosed by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster and Price as described above to facilitate discovery of media content [Garcia, para 0044].
As to claim 9, Foerster discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: after displaying, on the second page, … the second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and the first character card set [Fig. 6, para 0092-0093, browser interface presents website displaying added subcategories and list of characters facing challenge requested by user search],
in response to a trigger operation on any of the first-level labels, displaying on the second page the respective second-level labels corresponding to a triggered first-level label, and a second character card set, wherein the second character card set comprises a second portion of the plurality of character cards corresponding to the triggered first-level label [Fig. 6, para 0092-0093, user request to search challenge category presents drilled down subcategories of selected challenge and list of characters facing challenge category (read: second character card set) requested by user search of selected category];
in response to a trigger operation on any of the respective second-level labels corresponding to the triggered first-level label, displaying a third character card set on the second page, wherein the third character card set comprises a third portion of the plurality of character cards corresponding to a triggered second-level label subordinate to the triggered first-level label [Fig. 6, para 0092-0093, user request to select challenge subcategory of challenge category presents list of characters facing subcategory challenge (read: third character card set) requested by user search of selected subcategory].
However, Foerster and Price do not specifically disclose displaying, on the second page, the first-level labels, the second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and the first character card set.
Garcia discloses displaying, on the second page, first-level labels, second-level labels subordinate to the first-level labels, and a first character card set [Figs. 3A-3B, para 0045-0047, 0049, character user interface displays character name text (read: first-level label), event text (read: second-level label), and images associated with selected character (read: first character card set)].
Foerster, Price, and Garcia are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of media content systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second page displaying second-level labels and a first character card set as disclosed by Foerster and Price with the page displaying first-level labels, second-level labels, and a first character card set as disclosed by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Foerster and Price as described above to facilitate discovery of media content [Garcia, para 0044].
As to claims 17 and 19, Foerster, Price, and Garcia, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the electronic device of claim 14 limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 4 and 6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (US 20250148027 A1) generally discloses displaying a book page after selecting a book from book recommendations.
Swerdlow et al. (US 20200077151 A1) generally discloses displaying character cards with information including an image, profile, media information, identity characteristic, and temperament characteristic.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights