DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the application and the preliminary amendment filed on 21 May 2024 and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 26 July 2024.
This office action made Non Final.
Claims 1-12 were originally filed on 5/21/2024.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12 were amended by the preliminary amendment.
Claim 10 was cancelled by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 13-20 were added by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority, CN202210010210.3 filed 1/6/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/26/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "7" and "11" have both been used to designate a target attribute control. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to specification filed on 5/21/2024 has not been entered for the following reason(s): Fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii) that states "The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. The amendment to the title fails to disclose markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. In other words, it is unclear what was added or deleted with this amendment. Thus, the amendment to the specification does not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(1) and is not entered. Because the amendment to the paragraphs of the specification was not entered, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments are not entered in part. Therefore, the original (unmarked) abstract filed on 5/21/24 is viewed as the current abstract. In regards to the original abstract, abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
storage apparatus configured to store in claim 11.
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.
For 112b purposes, 0144-0145 of Applicant’s specification discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 7-9, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the element “a target attribute control…” in the “in response…” limitation . However, Claim 1 already disclosed “a target attribute control”. Therefore, it is unclear if a “target attribute control” of claim 4 depends on the “target attribute control” in Claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 4 as “…wherein the intermediate attribute selection interface comprises an intermediate attribute control and the target attribute control”
Claim 15 recites similar issues as in Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the response result" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 4 as “in response to a response result…”
Claim 18 recites similar issues as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim 8 recites the element “…during a processing of the object to be processed” in the “displaying an animation…” limitation . However, Claim 1 already disclosed “a processing of the object to be processed” in the third “in response” limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if a “processing of the object to be processed” of claim 8 depends on the “processing of the object to be processed” in Claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as “displaying an animation of an attribute change during the processing of the selected object to be processed”
Claim 19 recites similar issues as in Claim 19 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim 9 recites the limitation(s): “displaying a time-limited processing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; in response to the time-limited processing control is being triggered, displaying a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface displayed before the time- limited processing interface, and displaying a time-limited interface after the second sharing control is triggered; in response to receiving a processing operation in the time-limited interface, responding to the processing operation;”.
First, the language of claim 9 states that time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control. Then, the next limitation states that in response to the time-limited processing control being trigger, a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface is displayed before the time-limited processing interface. In other words, the language states the second sharing control appears before the time-limited processing interface is displayed but states that the second sharing control is in response to the triggering of the time-limited processing interface control. In order for the time-limited processing interface control to be triggered, the time-limited processing interface, with its control, would have to be displayed first. Thus, the Examiner respectfully states how can the time-limited processing interface control be triggered before the display of second sharing control in the attribute changing interface if the time-limited processing interface has been displayed yet so the time-limited processing control can be triggered. In order for the time-limited processing control to be triggered, either the time-limited processing interface is displayed before the display of second sharing control or the second sharing control is triggered resulting in the display of time-limited processing interface for the triggering. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite for at least this reason.
Second, Claim 9 also recites the element “displaying a time-limited interface…” in the first “in response…” limitation . However, the previous limitation already disclosed “a time-limited processing interface”. Therefore, it is unclear if a “time-limited interface” in the “in response” limitation depends on the “time-limited processing interface” in the previous limitation or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Third, Claim 9 recites the limitation "the attribute changing interface" in the first “in response” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 9 as “displaying a time-limited processing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; displaying a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface displayed before the time- limited processing interface, and displaying the time- limited processing interface after the second sharing control is triggered; in response to receiving a processing operation in the time-limited processing interface, responding to the processing operation;”
Claim 20 recites similar issues as in Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11-13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domm et al (US20200304863, 2020).
As per independent claim 1, Domm et al discloses a method comprising:
displaying an object-to-be-processed selection interface; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “object-to-be-processed selection interface”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, FIG 18L; 18CC; 0488, 0500: discloses an item to be selected)
in response to a confirmation control in the object-to-be-processed selection interface being triggered, displaying an initial attribute selection interface of a selected object to be processed, wherein the initial attribute selection interface comprises an initial attribute control and a target attribute control, and the initial attribute control is configured to process the selected object to be processed with an initial attribute; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “initial attribute selection interface”, “initial attribute control”, “target attribute control”, and “initial attribute”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, FIG 18M, 18DD, 0500-0502: in response to selecting the icon of the item (form of confirmation control), an interface comprising an option to play the video associated with the content item (initial attribute) or an option to download the option (target attribute))
in response to the target attribute control in the initial attribute selection interface being triggered, displaying an initial attribute changing interface; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “initial attribute changing interface” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, FIG 18EE-HH; 0503-0504: a new version of the interface is displayed showing the status of the downloading of the selected object. Selecting the download option causing an animation of a progress bar initiating the download.)
in response to a processing of the selected object to be processed through the initial attribute changing interface satisfying a first preset condition, displaying a target attribute processing interface, wherein the target attribute processing interface is provided for a user to process the selected object to be processed with a target attribute. (; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “target attribute processing interface”, “target attribute”, and “first preset condition”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, FIG18HH-18II, 0505: selecting menu option icon updates the interface to display a menu resulting in a new interface being displayed. The user has options to share the video or delete the video from the device )
As per dependent claim 2, Domm et al discloses wherein the initial attribute changing interface comprises an initial processing control, an initial attribute processing interface is displayed after the initial processing control is triggered, and the initial attribute processing interface is provided for the user to process the selected object to be processed with the initial attribute. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “initial processing control”, “initial attribute processing interface”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, while during the operations of FIG 18EE-HH of Domm, one of a skilled artisan would have realized the user, at any time, has the ability to hover pointer 1801 over a respective listing (e.g. 1864) causes display of a play icon, which is selectable to cause playback of the respective content item as explained in paragraph 0502. In some embodiments, the user is able to cause playback without first downloading the respective content item. Selecting the playback icon causes playback to occur in a playback user interface as shown in 18E)
As per dependent claim 8, Domm et al discloses the in response
As per independent claim 11 and 12, Claims 11 and 12 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Domm et al discloses a processing apparatus, storage apparatus and a medium (FIG 1A, 0039)
As per dependent claims 13 and 19, claims 13 and 19 recites similar limitations as in claims 2 and 8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domm et al in further view of Zhang et al (US20140324986)
As per dependent claim 3, Domm discloses a sharing control (FIG 18II); however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the initial attribute changing interface comprises a first sharing control, and a sharing interface is displayed after the first sharing control is triggered; and the method further comprises: in response to receiving a sharing operation in the sharing interface, responding the sharing operation.(Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “sharing control”, “sharing interface”, and “sharing operation”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.) However, Zhang et al discloses an interface comprising a first sharing control and in response to the selecting of the sharing control, a sharing interface is presented. (FIG 6I; 0048) Furthermore, the sharing interface comprises a sharing option that when selected, allows the user to provide recipient information to whom to share the video to along with a comment. In response, the server obtains this information and sends the shared content to the identified recipient. (0048)(form of responding the sharing operation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the interface of the cited art with the cited features of Zhang et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of fostering social connections, provide value to others, and define their own identity or personal brand.
As per dependent claim 6, Domm et al discloses wherein the in response to a processing of the selected object to be processed through the initial attribute changing interface satisfying a first preset condition, displaying a target attribute processing interface comprises: in response to a response result satisfying the first preset condition during the processing of the selected object to be processed, displaying the target attribute processing interface. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “response result”, and “first present condition”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied., Thus, 18HH-18II: selecting menu option icon loads updates the interface to display a menu resulting in a new interface being displayed. The user has options to share the video or delete the video from the device )
As per dependent claims 14 and 17, claims 14 and 17 recites similar limitations as in claims 3 and 6 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domm et al in further view of Tavakol (WO2020141989, 2020)
As per dependent claim 4, the cited art fails to specifically disclose in response to a response result satisfying a second preset condition, displaying an intermediate attribute selection interface, wherein the intermediate attribute selection interface comprises an intermediate attribute control and a target attribute control, and the intermediate attribute control is configured to process the selected object to be processed with an intermediate attribute; and after the target attribute control in the intermediate attribute selection interface is triggered, displaying an intermediate attribute changing interface. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “response result”, “intermediate attribute selection interface”, “intermediate attribute control”, “target attribute control”, “intermediate attribute”, ““intermediate attribute changing interface” , and “second present condition”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.) However, Tavakol discloses in response to a response result satisfying a second preset condition, displaying an intermediate attribute selection interface (FIG 9; pg 27, ll19-34); wherein the intermediate attribute selection interface (FIG 9, 903) comprises an intermediate attribute control (FIG 10, 1002) and a target attribute control (FIG 11, 1100) , and the intermediate attribute control is configured to process the selected object to be processed with an intermediate attribute;(page 28, step 1002: item is saved for later to the user’s cart for purchase later; form of processing the selected object with an intermediate attribute) and after the target attribute control in the intermediate attribute selection interface is triggered, displaying an intermediate attribute changing interface (FIG 11; steps 1100, 1101)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the interface of the cited art with the cited features of Tavakol et al since it would have provided the benefit to attract, encourage and empower users to act, as per own preferences and on own discretion, upon customized advertisement/information while, without interruptions and disturbances, watching online video streaming sessions (pg 3)
As per dependent claim 5, the cited art fails to disclose the intermediate attribute changing interface comprises an intermediate processing control, an intermediate attribute processing interface is displayed after the intermediate processing control is triggered, and the intermediate attribute processing interface is provided for the user to process the selected object to be processed with the intermediate attribute. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “intermediate attribute processing interface”, “intermediate processing control”, “intermediate attribute changing interface” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.) However, based on the rejection of Claim 4 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Tavakol discloses wherein the intermediate attribute changing interface comprises an intermediate processing control, (page 28, step 1103; pg 29, steps 1200) FIG 12, an intermediate attribute processing interface is displayed after the intermediate processing control is triggered, (FIG 12, step 1201; page 29, step 1201 )and the intermediate attribute processing interface is provided for the user to process the selected object to be processed with the intermediate attribute. (page 29, 1201: item is purchased. A form of processing with the intermediate attribute)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to disclose in response to the response result satisfying a third preset condition, displaying a reprocessing selection interface, wherein the reprocessing selection interface comprises a reprocessing control and a set attribute control, the initial attribute changing interface is displayed again after the reprocessing control is triggered, a corresponding attribute processing interface is displayed after the set attribute control is triggered, and the attribute processing interface is provided for the user to process the selected object to be processed with a set attribute. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “response result”, “reprocessing selection interface”, “reprocessing control”, “set attribute control”, “initial attribute changing interface”, “attribute processing interface”, “set attribute”, and “third present condition”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.) However, based on the rejection of Claim 4 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Tavakol discloses in response to the response result satisfying a third preset condition, (page 30/FIG 13, step 1302: user selects no) displaying a reprocessing selection interface, (page 30/FIG 13, step 1303) wherein the reprocessing selection interface comprises a reprocessing control and a set attribute control, (page 30/FIG 13, step 1303, yes or no controls) the initial attribute changing interface is displayed again after the reprocessing control is triggered, (pages 30/FIG 13, 14, step 1304, 1400-1401) a corresponding attribute processing interface is displayed after the set attribute control is triggered, (pages 30-31/FIG 13, 15, step 1305, 1500-1501) and the attribute processing interface is provided for the user to process the selected object to be processed with a set attribute. (interact with stored object in person’s cart)
As per dependent claims 15-16 and 18, claims 15-16 and 18 recite similar limitations as in claims 4-5 and 7 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domm et al in further view of Synder(“Set an Expiration Date on Shared Google Drive Files”, 4/16/2019, 5 pages) in further view of Devine et al (US20190339822, 2019)
As per dependent claim 9, Domm et al discloses in response to a processing result satisfying a fourth preset condition, displaying the target attribute processing interface (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “response result”, “processing result”, “target attribute processing interface” and “third present condition”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied, Thus, FIG 18F-18G; 0483: selecting menu option icon updates the interface to display a menu resulting in the new interface being displayed.)
Furthermore, Domm et al fails to disclose displaying a time-limited processing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; in response to the time-limited processing control being triggered, displaying a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface displayed before the time- limited processing interface, and displaying a time-limited interface after the second sharing control is triggered; in response to receiving a processing operation in the time-limited interface, responding to the processing operation; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “time-limited processing interface”, “time-limited processing control”, “sharing control”, “attribute changing interface”, “time-limited interface” and “processing operation”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. However, based on the 112 rejection and the Examiner’s interpretation language of the limitations as explained under the 112 rejection, Synder discloses displaying a time-limited processing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; displaying a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface displayed before the time- limited processing interface, and displaying the time- limited processing interface after the second sharing control is triggered; in response to receiving a processing operation in the time-limited processing interface, responding to the processing operation. (pg 3-5: Synder discloses selecting the Share button on a first interface and loading a second interface comprising an Advanced option. Selecting on the advanced button loads another interface that comprises controls for setting time expiration for shared contents; thus displaying an interface that comprising time-limited processing controls after the sharing controls has been selected. Furthermore, the user inputs “processing operations” which the system receives and applies to shared content, a form of responding to the operation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the interface of the cited art with the cited features of Synder since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of helping maintain a tight, organized control over who has access to assets and for how long.
Furthermore, Domm et al discloses a form of an initial attribute changing interface, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the attribute changing interface comprises the initial attribute changing interface and an intermediate attribute changing interface. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “initial attribute changing interface”, “attribute changing interface”, “intermediate attribute changing interface”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. However, Devine discloses the attribute changing interface comprises the initial attribute changing interface and an intermediate attribute changing interface. (FIG 8D, 8I: 0364-0365; 6F, 6M: discloses the combination of two interfaces as one overall interface. Discloses an interface showing the downloading of content and an interface for sharing the downloaded content. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the interface of the cited art with the cited features of Devine et al since it would have provided the benefit of faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for viewing and sharing relevant media items, thereby increasing the effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction with such devices. (0017)
As per dependent claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitations as in claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Claims 11 and 12 recite the element “processing apparatus”. However, it’s unclear, based on Applicant’s specification, if the element is a hardware processor such as CPU. Thus, the examiner recommends changing "processing apparatus" to "a hardware processor" to remove any ambiguity on the meaning of "processing apparatus"
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172