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 final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on: 07/06/2026.
Claims 2 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 16 are amended. Claims 1, 3-16 and 18-20 are pending.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Cuthbert (US Application: US 2009/0077022, published: Mar. 19, 2009, filed: Oct. 18, 2005).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Louch (US Application: US 20090215497, published: Aug. 27, 2009, filed: Feb. 21, 2008).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Nierenberg (US Application: US 2012/0284293, published: Nov. 8, 2012, filed: May 6, 2011).
Claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Gangadharappa et al (US Application: US 2010/0162274, published: Jun. 24, 2010, filed: Dec. 18, 2008).
Claim(s) 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Ingrassia, JR. et al (US Application: US 2011/0295843, published: Dec. 1, 2011, filed: May 26, 2010).
Claim(s) 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Rosenberg et al (US Application: US 2017/0295119, published: Oct. 12, 2017, filed: Dec. 29, 2016) in view of Ingrassia, JR. et al (US Application: U S2011/0295843, published: Dec. 1, 2011, filed: May 26, 2010) in view of Nierenberg (US Application: US 2012/0284293, published: Nov. 8, 2012, filed: May 6, 2011).
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) 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021).
With regards to claim 1, Labarca teaches a computing device, comprising: processing circuitry and memory storing instructions (Fig. 19: a device including a processor and memory is implemented) that, during execution, cause the processing circuitry to:
cause a widget to be displayed on a home screen graphical user interface (GUI) of an operating system of the computing device (paragraphs 0056 and 0057, Fig. 5: An IAE widget is implemented and is interactively displayed to the user);
obtain location information of a current location of the computing device; send a request to download widget content from a widget content application programming interface (API) of a widget application server of a … platform, the request including the location information (Fig. 5, paragraph 0057: current location information of the user’s device is obtained and sent to an IAEM (interpreted as the widget application server) as a request (type of search request).);
receive the widget content from the widget application server, the widget content having been selected based on the location information, and the widget content including an image of user generated content and display the widget content in the widget on the home screen GUI (Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Fig 10 paragraphs 0059, 0061 - 0063, 0066: IAE widget content is provided back to the user’s device in a priority order (such as by distance, category, etc) and the content includes items associated with location specific advertising entities that include metadata such as Link data, picture/image data, message/text data, etc. This content can be tapped/selected and additional actions can be available such as when the user taps a website control , which then performs corresponding action to obtain additional information ).
However Labarca does not expressly teach … download widget content from a widget content application programming interface (API) of a widget application server of a user video-sharing platform …; … user generated content created and posted on the user video-sharing platform by a user, the widget content being linked to the user generated content within the user video-sharing platform via a deep link; .. in response to user selection of the widget content, send a request for the user generated content including the deep link to the widget application server of the user video-sharing platform, receive the user generated content from the widget application server using the deep link and display the user generated content.
Yet Mourkogiannis et al teaches … download widget content from a widget content application programming interface (API) of a widget application server of a user video-sharing platform … ( Fig. 1, paragraphs 0015, 0026 and 0027: messaging application (interpreted as a widget) content is downloaded via API of a server (part of a content sharing platform including image, messaging and video content)); … user generated content created and posted on the user video-sharing platform by a user, the widget content being linked to the user generated content within the user video-sharing platform via a deep link (Fig. 6: as shown user generated content is submitted to a messaging platform for viewing (ref 610). As explained in paragraphs 0036, 0068, 0077, 0081, and 0100: the content shared in a message is associated with image and/or video story content (such as a music story) ); .. in response to user selection of the widget content, send a request for the user generated content including the deep link to the widget application server of the user video-sharing platform (Fig. 6, paragraph 0062 , 0063, 0096 and 0097: in response to user request, the user generated content can be depicted (optionally based on location of the user) and selectable having a deep link via button), receive the user generated content from the widget application server using the deep link and display the user generated content (paragraph 0096 and 0097 and Fig. 6: a deep link request is provided and received by the server and the user generated content is provided and displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Labarca’s ability to receive widget/application content from a widget application based on location information and presenting the application/widget content to the user (based on location) such that the application server is modified to include an API used to provide the content via deep linking for a requesting user (optionally based on location), as taught by Mourkogiannis et al. The combination would have allowed Labarca to have implemented an efficient and scalable way to share content between users in a network environment.
With regards to claim 3. The computing device of claim 1, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches and when the widget content is tapped by the user, the processing circuitry is configured to send a search query including a location parameter indicating the current location to the widget application server, and in response receive search results from the widget application server and display the search results (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, location data is provided as a search request and widget content associated with advertisers corresponding to the current location is obtained and displayed in Fig. 7 , 9 and 10 of Labarca), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The computing device of claim 1, Labarca teaches wherein the location information includes the current location designated by the user (paragraph 0025: the current location is set by the user positioning his/her mobile device at a particular geo-location).
With regards to claim 6. The computing device of claim 1, Labarca teaches wherein the widget content includes text description with the image of the user generated content (Fig 7, Fig. 10, paragraph 0059: the widget content displays text description content and also an image associated with a particular advertiser).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches a computerized method, comprising: causing a widget to be displayed on a home screen graphical user interface (GUI) of an operating system of the computing device; obtaining location information of a current location of the computing device; sending a request to download widget content from a widget content application programming interface (API) of a widget application server of a user video-sharing platform, the request including the location information; receiving the widget content from the widget application server, the widget content having been selected based on the location information, and the widget content including an image of user generated content created and posted on the user video-sharing platform by a user, the widget content being linked to the user generated content within the user video-sharing platform via a deep link; and displaying the widget content in the widget on the home screen GUI; and in response to user selection of the widget content, sending a request for the user generated content including the deep link to the widget application server of the user video-sharing platform, receive the user generated content from the widget application server using the deep link, and display the user generated content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The computerized method of claim 9, Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches wherein the widget content is linked to user generated content of the social media platform via a deep link, and the computerized method further comprises: when the widget content is tapped by a user, sending a search query including a location parameter indicating the current location to the widget application server, and in response receiving search results from the widget application server and displaying the search results, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The computerized method of claim 9, Labarca teaches wherein the location information includes the current location designated by a user (paragraph 0025: the current location is set by the user positioning his/her mobile device at a particular geo-location).
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches a computing device, comprising: processing circuitry and memory storing instructions that, during execution, cause the processing circuitry to: cause a widget to be displayed on a home screen graphical user interface (GUI) of an operating system of the computing device; obtain location information associated with a user; send a request to download widget content from a widget content application programming interface (API) of a widget application server of a user video-sharing platform; receive the widget content from the widget application server, the widget content having been selected based on the location information, and the widget content including an image of user generated content that includes music information created and posted on the user video-sharing platform by the user, the widget content being linked to the user generated content within the user video-sharing platform via a deep link; and display the widget content in the widget on the home screen GUI; and in response to user selection of the widget content, send a request for the user generated content including the deep link to the widget application server of the user video-sharing platform, receive the user generated content from the widget application server using the deep link, and display the user generated content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The computing device of claim 16, Labarca teaches wherein the widget content has been selected based on user location information transmitted to the widget application server from the processing circuitry of the computing device (paragraph 0025: the current location is set by the user positioning his/her mobile device at a particular geo-location).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Cuthbert (US Application: US 2009/0077022, published: Mar. 19, 2009, filed: Oct. 18, 2005).
With regards to claim 7. The computing device of claim 1, Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches wherein the widget content (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1). Additionally, Labarca teaches the widget content includes information pertinent to the current location selected from the group consisting of restaurants (paragraph 0048: information includes restaurant(s)), attractions (paragraph 0048: information can be associated with/pertinent to food near Disney world (interpreted as attraction related information)), parks (paragraph 0048: information can be associated with/pertinent to food near Disney world (interpreted as Park related information)), shopping (paragraph 0048: information includes shopping for a product).
However the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al does not expressly teach … content includes information pertinent to current location selected from … music.
Yet Cuthbert teaches … content includes information pertinent to current location selected from … music (Abstract, Figure 1, paragraph 0046: music information can be provided based on user mobile device location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al’s ability to obtain and present information based upon current location, such that the information could further include music related information, as taught by Cuthbert. The combination would have allowed presented relevant information without the user having to type or identify a desired entity (Cuthbert, paragraph 0005).
With regards to claim 13. The computerized method of claim 9, the combination of Labarca, Mourkogiannis et al and Cuthbert teaches wherein the widget content includes information pertinent to the current location selected from the group consisting of restaurants, attractions, parks, shopping, and music, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Louch (US Application: US 20090215497, published: Aug. 27, 2009, filed: Feb. 21, 2008).
With regards to claim 4. The computing device of claim 1, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches wherein the location information … [and] … determine the current location, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al does not expressly teach … the location information includes an IP address and/or cellular information that is resolved to determine the current location.
Yet Louch teaches … the location information includes an IP address and/or cellular information that is resolved to determine the current location (paragraphs 0027 and 0033: current location can be determined via cellular triangulation information, which is then used to obtain location specific widget content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al ability to determine a current location for obtaining widget content, such that the current location is determined using cellular triangulation information, as taught by Louch. The combination would have allowed Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al to have efficiently presented the user with content relevant to the user’s current location.
With regards to claim 11. The computerized method of claim 9, the combination of Labarca, Mourkogiannis et al and Louch teaches wherein the location information includes an IP address and/or cellular information that is resolved to determine the current location, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Nierenberg (US Application: US 2012/0284293, published: Nov. 8, 2012, filed: May 6, 2011).
With regards to claim 8. The computing device of claim 1, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches wherein the widget content is prioritized by the widget application server based on criterion (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 , Labarca in Fig. 7, paragraphs 0061-0063 was explained to teach the content provided to the widget from the server can be presented in a prioritized manner), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al does not expressly teach prioritized by the … server based on criterion selected from the group consisting of popularity, recency, and usage frequency.
Yet Nierenberg teaches prioritized by the … server based on criterion selected from the group consisting of popularity, recency, and usage frequency (paragraph 0055: search results are selected based on criteria including popularity, frequency or recentness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al‘s ability to produce prioritized widget content to the user, such that the prioritization can be based upon popularity, recency and/or usage frequency, as taught by Nierenberg. The combination would have allowed Labaraca and Mourkogiannis et al to have enhanced user experience by presenting searches in an intuitive and informative manner.
With regards to claim 14. The computerized method of claim 9, the combination of Labarca, Mourkogiannis et al and Nierenberg teaches wherein the widget content is prioritized by the widget application server based on criterion selected from the group consisting of popularity, recency, and usage frequency, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Gangadharappa et al (US Application: US 2010/0162274, published: Jun. 24, 2010, filed: Dec. 18, 2008).
With regards to claim 15. The computerized method of claim 9, further comprising: Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches … widget content from a widget content feed from the widget content API of the widget application server, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … refreshing the widget content periodically, with updated widget content ….
Yet Gangadharappa et al teaches … refreshing the widget content periodically, with updated widget content …. (paragraph 0014: widget can be configured to periodically refresh with data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al’s ability to obtain widget content, such that the widget content can be configured to obtain/refresh content periodically, as taught by Gangadharappa et al. The combination would have allowed Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al to have allowed the user to view up to date data without having to manually navigate to obtain relevant content.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Ingrassia, JR. et al (US Application: US 2011/0295843, published: Dec. 1, 2011, filed: May 26, 2010).
With regards to claim 19. The computing device of claim 16, the combination of Labarca, and Mourkogiannis et al teaches .. the music information … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 16, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein the music information includes text and/or image pertinent to a music track.
Yet Ingrassia, JR et la teaches … wherein the music information includes text and/or image pertinent to a music track (paragraphs 0008, 0027, 0028, 0040, 0041, 0044, 0060, 0063: user generated content includes a playlist that references music information having title (text) of track(s) based upon a social media platform of other users that collectively help produce the playlist and context metrics that include frequency (such as song playback frequency and popularity/group-metrics)) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al’s ability obtain user generated content (based on location) from a server in a social media environment, such that the user generated content would have included suggested music content based on location as taught by Ingrassia, JR et al. The combination would have produced generated content that are appealing and interesting based upon a network of listeners (Ingrassia, JR et al, paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarca (US Application: US 2012/0095839, published: Apr. 19, 2012, filed: Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US Application: US 2021/0304506, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 17, 2021) in view of Nierenberg (US Application: US 2012/0284293, published: Nov. 8, 2012, filed: May 6, 2011).
With regards to claim 20. The computing device of claim 16, the combination of Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al teaches wherein the widget content is selected by the widget application server based on criterion selected from the group consisting of popularity, recency, and usage frequency
However the combination does not expressly teach selected … based on criterion selected … consistent of recency ….
Yet Nierenberg teaches selected … based on criterion selected … consistent of recency … (paragraph 0055: search results are selected based on criteria including popularity, frequency or recentness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al ’s ability to produce prioritized widget content to the user based on metrics of popularity and frequency, such that the prioritization can be based additionally on other additional context metrics including recency, as taught by Nierenberg. The combination would have allowed Labaraca, Mourkogiannis et al and Nierenberg to have enhanced user experience by presenting searches in an intuitive and informative manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues Labarca does not address/teach a video sharing platform, and further argues Rosenberg also does not address the newly amended limitations. In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the amendments necessitated a new grounds of rejection and a new combination of references (Labarca and Mourkogiannis et al) is now applied for the independent claim to address the new amendments. The applicant’s attention is directed to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 for an explanation as to how the references are combined/applied to teach newly amended claim 1.
The applicant argues with regards to claims 9 and 16, they are allowable in view of reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected.
The applicant argues with regards to claims 3-8, they are allowable in view of reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected.
The applicant argues with regards to claims 10-15, they are allowable in view of reasons presented by the applicant for claim 9. However, this argument is not persuasive since claim 9 has been shown/explained to be rejected.
The applicant argues with regards to claims 18-20, they are allowable in view of reasons presented by the applicant for claim 16. However, this argument is not persuasive since claim 16 has been shown/explained to be rejected.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights