DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 7/2/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 4, and 14, replace … displaying the target display element in the second area … with … displaying the preview information in the second area … for consistency with the rest of each of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Comments
Examiner notes the contingent limitations in method claims 7-10 and product (device) claims 17 and 18. For method claims 7-10, the BRI of each of claims 7-10 requires only one of the mutually exclusive conditions (“having read the book” and “not having read the book”). Prior art is provided for both conditions for the method claims for claims 7-9 to promote compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata et al., US PGPUB 2016/0071198 Al (hereinafter as Rampata) in view of Ragan, US Patent No. 8,117,548 B1 (hereinafter as Ragan).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rampata teaches a method for displaying information [see e.g. the title], the method comprising:
displaying at least one display element in a first display page, different display elements
characterizing different content types, the different content types comprising at least one selected
from a group consisting of different content genres and different numbers of books associated with the display element [see the display 801 of fig. 8 showing display elements 812; note from [0040] that the visual representation for a single item differs than that for a series of items (as can also be seen by comparing the representations 812 and 814];
in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being
selected, updating to display preview information corresponding to the first display element in
the first display page, wherein the preview information is associated with a content type of the
first display element [note the display of the preview information in the display 802 of fig. 8 responsive to the selection of element 812 in display 801; note that the preview shows items in series when the selected element 812 represents a series of content items]; and
displaying reading information corresponding to the first display element in response to
a triggering operation on the preview information of the first display element [note the display of reading information 840 including the number of pages to be read in display 804; note that 804 is displayed responsive to a selection on 830 in the preview display].
Rampata does not explicitly teach that in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being selected, updating to display the preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page, comprises:
counting an amount of information in the preview information; and
determining whether to enlarge a size of a first area in which the preview information is displayed based on the counted amount of information.
Ragan teaches updating to display preview information corresponding to a display element in a display page that comprises: counting an amount of information in the preview information; and determining whether to enlarge a size of the area in which the preview information is displayed based on the counted amount of information [see e.g. steps 710 and 720 of fig. 7 and the corresponding description; see also col. 7, lines 24-35 and the last 6 lines of claim 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Rampata and Ragan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ragan’s teaching of counting an amount of information in preview information; and determining whether to enlarge a size of the area in which the preview information is displayed based on the counted amount of information to Rampata’s updating to display the preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being selected. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable dynamically adapting to the size of data in need of being displayed by determining and displaying that data in an appropriate manner, as suggested by the teachings of Ragan [e.g. see col. 7, lines 24-35 ; col. 10, lines 37-52; and fig. 7] which would enhance Rampata’s framework for e-book preview by efficiently using screen space.
Regarding independent claim 12, it is analogously rejected. Rampata further teaches a computer device comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory [see the computing device 1100 and shown in fig. 11 as well as fig. 12 and the corresponding description], wherein the at least one memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, the at least one processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions stored in the at least one memory, and the machine-readable instructions, upon being executed by the at least one processor [see e.g. [0101] and [0106]], implement a method for displaying information (as claimed in claim 1). Refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 20, it is analogously rejected. Rampata further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer programs, and the computer programs, upon being run by a computer device, implement a method for displaying information [see e.g. [0111]] (as claimed in claim 1). Refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the rejections of claims 1 and 12 are respectfully incorporated.
Rampata further teaches that in response to the first display page comprising a user collection page [note the indication of “All books” in display 801 of fig. 8 indicating showing items in the user’s library as can be seen also in figs. 2-7], the preview information corresponding to the first display element is determined in a following manner:
in response to a number of books of the first display element being one, determining the
preview information based on a book content corresponding to a first book indicated by the first display element [note in 840 the preview (shown in 804) based on book content corresponding to the single book represented by the display element 830 in the display (shown in 803); see also the example in fig. 3]; and
in response to a number of books of the first display element being more than one,
determining a plurality of first books indicated by the first display element and determining the preview information based on book information corresponding to the plurality of first books [note in 820 the preview (indicating titles and prices if not already owned) for the books in the series based on book information corresponding to the plurality of books in the series represented by the display element 812 in display 810].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the rejections of claims 1 and 12 are respectfully incorporated.
Rampata further teaches that in response to the first display page comprising a book recommendation page [note from [0120] that the display of the media item(s) can be performed for the store view; note the control 230 to switch to a “Book Store” view in fig. 2], the preview information corresponding to the first display element is determined in a following manner:
in response to a number of books of the first display element being one, obtaining book
recommendation information corresponding to a first book indicated by the first display
element as the preview information [note in 840 the preview (shown in 804) including recommendation information such as rating and price (for the case of a book not already owned) based on book content corresponding to the single book represented by the display element 830 in the display (shown in 803)]; and
in response to a number of books of the first display element being more than one,
determining a first booklist indicated by the first display element to determine the preview
information based on booklist introduction information corresponding to the first booklist [note in 820 and 830 the preview information (indicating titles and prices for items not already owned) for the books in the series based on the booklist information corresponding to the plurality of books in the series represented by the display element 812 in display 810].
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan (as applied to claims 1 and 12 above) and further in view of Kopp et al., US PGPUB 2013/0283194 Al (hereinafter as Kopp).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the rejections of claims 1 and 12 are respectfully incorporated.
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that in the first display page, the first display element is displayed in a target area in a form of card display.
Neither does it explicitly teach that the in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being selected, updating to display preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page, comprises: in response to the first display element being selected, displaying a flip effect in the form of card display in the target area, and updating to display the preview information in the target area after the flip effect ends being displayed.
Kopp teaches a first display element displayed in a target area in a first display page in a form of card display [see fig. 4D, [0075] and the abstract].
Kopp further teaches that in response to a first display element among at least one display element being selected, displaying a flip effect in the form of card display in the target area updating to display, in the target area, preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page after the flip effect ends being displayed [see [0070] and fig. 4E as well as [0019]-[0020] and figs. 1D-1E].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kopp before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kopp’s display element style in the form of a card display and Kopp’s flip effect for the card display in response to the first display element being selected to the display of preview information responsive to the selection of the corresponding display element taught by Rampata. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable facilitating a way of showing multiple different sets of content related to a theme of the item represented by the virtual card through repetitive flipping in place, as suggested by Kopp [[0021]-[0022]] which would enhance Rampata’s framework for e-book preview by facilitating the application of style aspects to GUI elements and their operation thus enhancing the display capabilities.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan and Kopp (as applied to claims 2 and 13 above), and further in view of HAN et al., US PGPUB 2013/0268875 Al (hereinafter as HAN).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the rejections of claims 2 and 13 are respectfully incorporated.
The previously combined art further teaches that the in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being selected, updating to display preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page comprises: in response to the counted amount of information exceeding a predetermined amount of information, enlarging a size of a first area in which the preview information is displayed to obtain a second area after enlarging, and displaying the preview information in the second area, wherein a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information [see the portions cited above from Rampata (such as the display of the preview information in the display 802 of fig. 8 responsive to the selection of element 812 in display 801; note that the preview shows items in series when the selected element 812 represents a series of content items]; ) and Ragan (such as steps 710 and 720 of fig. 7 and the corresponding description; see also col. 7, lines 24-35 and the last 6 lines of claim 5) and the motivations to combine in the independent claims].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information and a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the second area.
HAN teaches in response to a first display element being selected, enlarging a size of a first area in which preview information is displayed to obtain a second area after enlarging, and displaying the preview information in the second area, wherein a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information and a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the second area [see [0239] and fig. 17 (a) and (b); note the enlargement of the size of the area to the size of the element 52 to accommodate the preview information about the music represented by icon 50; note the second threshold value for the region which is a maximum threshold; note from [0094]-[0095] the selection of the object resulting in the execution of the enlargement; see also [0035]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and HAN before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply HAN’s enlargement scheme of interface regions responsive to selection of corresponding display elements that specifies a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the enlarged area to the display of preview information responsive to the selection of the corresponding display element taught by Rampata and modified by Ragan and Kopp. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing more screen space to display preview/summary information pertaining to content upon request by a user, as in the examples provided by HAN [again, see e.g. fig. 17 and [0239]] which would enhance Rampata’s framework for e-book preview by saving screen real-estate until needed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of HAN.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The previously combined art further teaches that the in response to a first display element among the at least one display element being selected, updating to display preview information corresponding to the first display element in the first display page comprises: in response to the counted amount of information exceeding a predetermined amount of information, enlarging a size of a first area in which the preview information is displayed to obtain a second area after enlarging, and displaying the preview information in the second area, wherein a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information [see the portions cited above from Rampata (such as the display of the preview information in the display 802 of fig. 8 responsive to the selection of element 812 in display 801; note that the preview shows items in series when the selected element 812 represents a series of content items]; ) and Ragan (such as steps 710 and 720 of fig. 7 and the corresponding description; see also col. 7, lines 24-35 and the last 6 lines of claim 5) and the motivations to combine in the independent claims].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information and a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the second area.
HAN teaches in response to a first display element being selected, enlarging a size of a first area in which preview information is displayed to obtain a second area after enlarging, and displaying the preview information in the second area, wherein a size of the second area is determined based on an amount of information in the preview information and a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the second area [see [0239] and fig. 17 (a) and (b); note the enlargement of the size of the area to the size of the element 52 to accommodate the preview information about the music represented by icon 50; note the second threshold value for the region which is a maximum threshold; note from [0094]-[0095] the selection of the object resulting in the execution of the enlargement; see also [0035]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and HAN before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply HAN’s enlargement scheme of interface regions responsive to selection of corresponding display elements that specifies a threshold of a maximum amount of information that can be carried in the enlarged area to the display of preview information responsive to the selection of the corresponding display element taught by Rampata and modified by Ragan and Kopp. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing more screen space to display preview/summary information pertaining to content upon request by a user, as in the examples provided by HAN [again, see e.g. fig. 17 and [0239]] which would enhance Rampata’s framework for e-book preview by saving screen real-estate until needed.
Claims 7-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan (as applied to claim 6 (for claims 7 and 8), claim 5, (for claims 9 and 10) and claim 16 (for claim 17) above, respectively), and further in view of Kandekar et al., US PGPUB 2012/0210203 Al (hereinafter as Kandekar).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 17, the rejection of claims 6, 5, and 16 are respectfully incorporated.
Rampata does not explicitly teach that in response to the preview information being
determined based on a book content of a book, the method further comprises determining the
preview information in a following manner:
determining a reading progress corresponding to the book; and
in response to the reading progress characterizing having read the book, determining at least one selected from a group consisting of review summary information and abstract information of a to-be-read content of the book based on the reading progress of the book, to determine the preview information of the book based on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the review summary information and the abstract information of the to-be-read content, wherein the review summary information is determined by utilizing a read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress and the abstract information of the to-be-read content is determined by utilizing a to-be-read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress.
Kandekar teaches in response to preview information being determined based on a book content of a book [note in [0006] presenting a summary of a single media item such as an e-book], determining the preview information in a following manner:
determining a reading progress corresponding to the book [note in [0006] the identification of a position within the media item; see also [0020] indicating the identification of a bookmarked position within the e-book; note from [0029] that the bookmark indicates reading progress]; and
in response to the reading progress characterizing having read the book, determining at least one selected from a group consisting of review summary information and abstract information of a to-be-read content of the book based on the reading progress of the book, to determine the preview information of the book based on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the review summary information and the abstract information of the to-be-read content, wherein the review summary information is determined by utilizing a read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress and the abstract information of the to-be-read content is determined by utilizing a to-be-read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress [see [0006] and note generating a content summary based on content of the e-book preceding the bookmarked position; see also [0020]; [0049]; [0052]; and fig. 4a].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kandekar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kandekar’s teaching of determining the preview information based on a book content of a book by: determining a reading progress corresponding to the book; and in response to the reading progress characterizing having read the book, determining at least one selected from a group consisting of review summary information and abstract information of a to-be-read content of the book based on the reading progress of the book, to determine the preview information of the book based on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the review summary information and the abstract information of the to-be-read content, wherein the review summary information is determined by utilizing a read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress and the abstract information of the to-be-read content is determined by utilizing a to-be-read book content obtained from the book content based on the reading progress to the e-book preview framework taught by Rampata. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable refreshing a user’s memory about previously read book content, as suggested by Kandekar [see [0004]].
Examiner notes for claims 7 and 17 the possibility of the user having had a chance to partially read a book in their “recommended books” by borrowing it from a friend utilizing his account.
Examiner also notes for all three claims that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “having read the book” to mean “having partially read the book”.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the rejection of claims 7 and 9 are respectfully incorporated. The only limitation recited by each of method claims 8 and 10 is a contingent limitation that is not required. No further art mapping is needed. See the comment in the “Examiner Comments” section above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan and Kandekar, as applied to claims 7 and 17 above respectively, and further in view of Yu et al., US Patent No. 10,545,640 Bl (hereinafter as Yu).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the rejections of claims 7 and 17 are respectfully incorporated.
Rampata further teaches in response to a reading progress characterizing not having read a book, determining book abstract information for introducing the book based on the book content of the book, and obtaining a trial book content to determine preview information based on the book abstract information and the trial book content [note e.g. the selected book 724 in display 703 of fig. 7 and note preview information in display 704 of fig. 7 showing book description 742 and indicating a book sample 748; note from [0050] that the “next” triangle indicates an unpurchased book; note e.g. from [0066] the tracking of reading progress for each book and note that for unpurchased book, the tracking would indicate a null amount of reading and would initiate preview information as in fig. 7 and the related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Rampata and Kandekar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further apply Rampata’s teaching regarding determining book abstract information for introducing a book based on the book content of the book, and obtaining a trial book content to determine preview information based on the book abstract information and the trial book content in cases where it is determined that the book has not been read to further modify the e--book preview framework taught by Rampata and modified by the teachings of Kandekar. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to provide appropriate preview information, as in the examples provided by Rampata [again, see fig. 7 and the related description].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the trial book content corresponds to a first chapter of the book.
Yu teaches a trial book content that corresponds to a first chapter of the book [see fig. 1A showing chapter 1 as a sample for a to-be-purchased e-book; see also col. 8, lines 37-39].
Yu further teaches determining preview information based on the book abstract information and the trial book content [see e.g. col. 26, lines 13-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Yu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined framework by explicitly specifying that the trial book content corresponds to a first chapter of the book, as per the teachings of Yu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate user engagement by encouraging them to start reading, as in the example provided by Yu [again, see e.g. fig. 1A].
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rampata in view of Ragan (as applied to claims 1 and 12 above), and further in view of Reid et al., US PGPUB 2016/0140085 Al (hereinafter as Reid).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the rejections of claims 1 and 12 are respectfully incorporated.
Rampata further teaches content genre corresponding to the first display element comprising an image genre [note e.g. 816 in display 810 of fig. 8 showing comic book #1].
Rampata further teaches determining a display position corresponding to at least preview information in the first display page for displaying the preview information based on the display position [note the display of preview information in display 820 of fig. 8 based on certain display positions for elements of the preview].
Rampata, however, does not explicitly teach that the updating to display preview information corresponding to the first display element comprises: in response to the content genre corresponding to the first display element being the image genre, determining a display position corresponding to at least one to-be-displayed image in the preview information in the first display page for displaying the preview information based on the display position, wherein the to-be-displayed image belongs to a book content of a book corresponding to the first display element.
Reid also teaches content genre comprising an image genre [see the comic books including graphics or images indicated in [0016[].
Reid further teaches preview information corresponding to certain items including a to-be-displayed image belonging to a book content of a book corresponding to the item [see [0015] and note creating customized e-book previews; note in [0066] including user-selected portions of an e-book (including text and/or images) to create the preview].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Rampata and Reid before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Reid’s customized preview information enabling specifying to-be-displayed images that correspond to previews of items representing image-genre books to the display of preview information responsive to the selection of the corresponding display element taught by Rampata and utilizing the display position as taught by Rampata. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable creating targeted book previews, which are more likely to increase interest in the e-book and potentially increase sales, as suggested by Reid [[0015]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in view of the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered. Applicant is referred to some pending informalities, as indicated above.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 20 and arguments with respect to claim 10 in view of the previously presented claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections are accordingly being withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claim(s) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art:
US 10255249 B1, which teaches previewing e-book content within websites [see e.g. title and fig. 4].
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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights