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 8 June 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 15, and 17-20 have been amended.
The 112b rejection of Claims 4-5, 7-8, 15-16, 18, and 19 and all art rejection as presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification involving the abstract, paragraph(s) of Cross-reference to related applications, paragraph(s) detail description of the invention, and title, filed on 1/15/26, has not been accepted/entered.
The amendment has not been entered for the following reasons: The amendment to the specification titled “AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION” also include an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Title of the invention, the Detailed description of the invention, and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. MPEP 608.01(b) states that a corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendment to Title of the specification, Detailed Description of the invention, etc. Therefore, the amendments to the specification were not entered for these reasons.
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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawing(s) filed on 8 June 2026 has been entered.
However, the drawings remain 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. (See FIG 5 and 0054, 0075) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 11. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation(s) of Claim 11 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the subject matter/limitations “displaying a time-limited processing interface during a displaying of an attribute changing interface”. However, after reviewing Applicant’s specification, the Examiner is unable to find support of the subject matter of attribute changing interface being displayed during the displaying of the time-limited processing interface. In addition, it is noted that Applicant failed to provide support in Applicant’s remarks in regard to this amendment. The Examiner states FIG 8, particular step 250, and paragraphs 0093, 0099, 0103, do disclose displaying a time-limited processing interface from a displayed of an attribute changing interface; however, Applicant’s specification does not disclose or support that the attribute changing interface remains being displayed during (the same time as) the displaying time-limited processing interface. In addition, amended claim 9 clearly states returning to the attribute changing interface after exiting the time-limited processing interface that indicates attribute changing interface was displayed when the time-limited processing interface was displayed. Thus, Applicant’s specification does not support the displaying a time-limited processing interface during a displaying of an attribute changing interface; but does support displaying a time-limited processing interface after displaying of an attribute changing interface. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04.
Claim 20 recites similar issue(s) as in Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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 9, 20 remain 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 9 recites the limitation(s): “displaying a time-limited processing interface during a displaying of an attribute changing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; in response to the time-limited processing control is being triggered, returning to the attribute changing interface and 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 “displaying a time-limited processing interface during a displaying of an attribute changing interface”. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s specification does not explicitly state or suggest that the subject matter of attribute changing interface being displayed during the displaying of the time-limited processing interface; however, FIG 8, particular step 250, and paragraphs 0093, 0099, 0103 discloses displaying a time-limited processing interface from a displayed (after the displaying) of an attribute changing interface. This is supported by the additional language of amended 9 that states returning to the attribute changing interface in the next limitation. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 9 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in FIG 8, particular step 250, and paragraphs 0093, 0099, 0103.
Second, the language of claim 9 states “a second sharing control in the attribute changing interface is displayed before the time-limited processing interface” The language is unclear to the Examiner if the “second sharing control” or the “attribute changing interface” is displayed before the time-limited processing interface. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite for at least this reason.
Third, 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.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 9 as “displaying a time-limited processing interface after a displaying of an attribute changing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; in response to the time-limited processing control is being triggered, returning to the attribute changing interface and displaying a second sharing control in the attribute changing 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 § 103
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 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) 1-2, 8, 11-13, 19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domm et al (US20200304863, 2020) in further view of Davis et al (US20080004888, 2008)
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 first 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”, “first 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 (first attribute))
in response to the first 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 first attribute processing interface, wherein the first attribute processing interface is provided for a user to process the selected object to be processed with a first attribute. (; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “target attribute processing interface”, “first 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 )
Furthermore, FIG 18M, 18DD, 00339, 0477 0500-0502 of Domm et al discloses the selected object to be processed is video content that is associated with a particular episode, season, television series, movies, or content. FIG 18DD-II discloses selecting media/video associated with the user’s account’s library page (library user interface), particularly TV shows. 0496 discloses library user interface, which provides the user with the ability to browse through, interact with, and cause playback of content that the user has purchased access to. 0209 discloses content in the “library” page are not received as streaming or on-demand content from any particular provider. For example, the content can be purchased from a content store and be downloaded to the device. Thus, the videos the user selects for downloading as explained above, are videos that been purchased from an online store at one point; which had value. However, Domm et al fails to disclose the selected object to be processed is a commodity. (selected digital media such as videos is a commodity) (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “commodity” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
However, Davis et al discloses that the selected digital media such as videos are viewed as commodities. Davis et al discloses that a commodity is something useful (for example, a tangible or intangible good or service) that can be turned into commercial or other advantage (0018, 0020) wherein a Consumer is a person that acquires Commodities for personal use. 0045 discloses that commodities, such as digital videos, are transfer to consumers to for playing. Davis et al discloses a person is able to purchase content/video from an online/digital store and have the purchased video/content be transferred/downloaded to the person’s device for playback. (0042, 0070-0071)
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 Davis et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing customizable, wireless, location-based systems and services to receive specific opportunities to engage in e-commerce (0003).
In conjunction with the cited art, the combination teaches the ability for a user to access previously purchased commodities, such as digital videos, to be selected and processed through one or more interfaces.
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 processor, memory and a medium (FIG 1A, 0039)
As per dependent claims 13 and 19, claims 13 and 19 recite similar limitations as in claims 2 and 8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
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 Davis 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 first 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 first 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 Davis et al in further view of Zhang 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 Davis 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 Ahmad (“New sharing dialog for Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, and Forms”, online as of April 30, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8vY0Xik6c + 6 pages of screenshots,
and text from the Google Youtube video in document titled “New sharing dialog for Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, and Forms") 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 first attribute processing interface (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “processing result”, “target attribute processing interface” and “fourth 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 after a displaying of an attribute changing 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 after a displaying of an attribute changing 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 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.
However, the cited art fails to specifically in response to the time-limited processing control being triggered, returning to the attribute changing interface. However, Ahmad discloses returning to the attribute changing interface after the time-limited processing control being triggered. (0:00-0:19: After interacting with the “time-limited processing interface” comprising the controls and then exiting the interface, a new version of a sharing control is displayed when the previous displayed first interface is redisplayed. An updated version of the sharing control is a form of a (new) sharing control being displayed. Selecting the button this button again (0:03) will load the time-limited processing interface as shown in screenshots (0:05-0:13)
0:03: shows selecting a control to load “time-limited processing interface” which is shown in 0:05, 0:13.
PNG
media_image1.png
1200
1920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0:05, 00:13: shows the user interacting the time-limited processing interface and the user exiting the interface.
0:05
PNG
media_image2.png
895
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
0:13
PNG
media_image3.png
895
1432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
~0:14, 0:17: discloses updated version of the sharing control is a form of a (new) sharing control being displayed. Selecting the button (0:17 mouse over button) will load the time-limited processing interface as shown in 0:03 which loads the interface as shown in 0:05-:013
0:14:
PNG
media_image4.png
1200
1920
media_image4.png
Greyscale
0:17
PNG
media_image5.png
1200
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
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 Ahamd since it would have provided the benefit of made changes making it easier to share files only with specific people without expanding access beyond what’s needed.
Therefore, in conjunction with the cited art, the combination of the cited art teaches the subject matter/limitations displaying a time-limited processing interface during a displaying of an attribute changing interface, wherein the time-limited processing interface comprises a time-limited processing control; in response to the time-limited processing control being triggered, returning to the attribute changing interface and 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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13, in regards to drawing objection(s), Applicant states replacement sheet comprising an new Figure 5 has been amended to replace ref. number “11” with ref. number “7”. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states while the replacement sheets involving FIG. 5 were accepted and entered, Applicant’s amendment to the specification were not entered due to the reasons explained above under the header “Specification”. Therefore, Paragraph 0075 of Applicant’s specification still discloses reference characters "7" and "11" both being used to designate a target attribute control. Therefore, the objection remains.
On page 13, in response to Applicant’s remarks in regards to the objection to the specification, the Examiner respectfully states that the objection to the specification remains because the amendment to the specification was not entered. The amendment was not entered because the amendment to the specification titled “IN THE SPECIFICATION” also appears to include an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Title of the invention, the Detailed description of the invention, and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. MPEP 608.01(b) states that a corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendment to Title of the specification, Detailed Description of the invention, etc. Therefore, the amendments to the specification were not entered for these reasons.
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).
Therefore, the objection remains.
In response to Applicant’s remarks on the objection to claims 1-9 and 11-20 on page 14, the Examiner respectfully states claim 1-9 and 11-20 were not objected in the previous office action; therefore, there is no objection to the claims to be withdrawn. However, the Examiner indicates Applicant’s remarks have been noted.
On pages 14-15, in regards the 112b rejection of Claim 9 and 20, Applicant argues that claim 9 has been amended to overcome the issues cited in the prior office action. In addition, Applicant argues that the elements “time-limited processing interface” and “time-limited interface” are different. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s amendment has overcome most of the pending issues in Claim 9 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the claim 9 comprises new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Furthermore, the Examiner disagrees that the elements “time-limited processing interface” and “time-limited interface” are different. The Examiner respectfully states the Applicant provided no evidence showing that the elements “time-limited processing interface” and “time-limited interface” are different. Furthermore, the element “time-limited interface” appears AFTER the introduction of the element the element “time-limited processing interface”. Therefore, it appears that “time-limited interface” can be viewed as a truncated form of “time-limited processing interface”. Thus, the elements “time-limited processing interface” and “time-limited interface” may not be different as disclosed in the language of the claim. Therefore, the claim remains vague and indefinite for this reason also.
Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claim 9 remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner's Note: Applicant added new limitations to the claims; however, failed to specifically cite from Applicant's specification where it is supported. As a result, this puts a burden on the Examiner to determine if Applicant's disclosure supports the new limitations or is viewed as new matter. It is noted that the Examiner was able to find support. 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. 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 supported by the specification in order to meet the requirements 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.
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.
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights