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 action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/10/2026 to Application filed on 8/22/2024 with a claimed priority to a provisional application 63/643533 filed on 5/7/2024.
The previous rejections of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai, USPAT Pub 2014/0208259 A1 in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice, and claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai, USPAT Pub 2014/0208259 A1 in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice, as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Matsuno et al, USPTA Pub 2007/0206831 A1 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
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) 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai, USPAT Pub 2014/0208259 A1 in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice and Briscoe et al., USPAT 12,079,454 B1.
Per independent claim 1, Desai discloses the claimed computer-implemented method comprising: determining a scrolling velocity of a user interacting with a graphical user interface that is displaying a first data portion of a data set retrieved over a connection from a data source (Para [0041] “ initial scrolling velocity is calculated…” and [0031] “initial data may be retrieved from a database ...” );
determining a size of a second data portion to retrieve from the data source based at least on the scrolling velocity ([0046] “a second presentation of a second one or more items in the list of items…” and [0049] discussing additional data before and after the cut off time to make the presentation more contextual for the reader.);
sending a first data request to retrieve the second data portion of the data set, wherein the first data request specifies the size of the second data portion; receiving the second data portion of the data set in response to the first data request; including at least a portion of the second data portion of the data set in the graphical user interface ([0015] provides a good example of the processing where the size of the second data portion is derived using the scroll velocity and then the “database can place a request over the network for pages…” to be displayed.)
However, Desai does not explicitly disclose the limitations of:
determining a threshold portion of the second data portion of the data set at which to send a second data request; determining that the user has scrolled the graphical user interface such that at least the threshold portion of the second data portion is displayed; and sending the second data request to retrieve a third data portion of the data set.
These limitations are directed for the subsequent scrolling and retrieval processing after the initial scrolling process. Desai only explains the feature of determining the next amount of data to retrieve based on the current scrolling but does not explicitly discuss the usual situation where the same process can be repeated as the user keeps scrolling. Nevertheless, the Examiner takes an Official Notice that it was extremely well known in the prior art for the user to repeat the scrolling process to get to the desired portion of the data to view when the data to retrieve is large. Regarding this feature, Desai explicitly suggests that the number of times to repeat retrieving while scrolling depends on the size of the total data item, because it the size is too small, the repeat or even the initial retrieval based on scrolling is unnecessary ([0037] “it the number of items is too few, it may be unnecessary to calculate an initial scrolling velocity and predict….”). And, Desai further suggests the need for repeating the steps by teaching that “the initial scrolling velocity can be re-calculated at each point…” [0042].
Given that, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have repeated the velocity calculation and retrieval of the next subsequent content, since, as the Examiner’s Official Notice notes that it was well known to have provided multiple scrolling to get to the desired point to view when the data set is large.
On the other hand, the combined teaching of Desai in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice still does not disclose the newly added limitations: determining the size of the second data portion wherein the size of the second data portion is different from a size of the first data portion, and the size is determined by the scrolling velocity.
The missing limitations are taught by Briscoe. Briscoe teaches “weighted scroll” system that changes the size of the data portion to be fetched to be based on different situations including the user interaction data. The Briscoe’s system maintains the urgency score that is calculated based on factors including the scroll speed (col.4, lines 25-45, “various factors such as scroll rate, scroll direction …”). Bristoe then evaluates the urgency score against the threshold and if exceeded varies the amount of data to be fetched (col.4, lines 35+, “if the user is scrolling at a high rate, the threshold can be lowered or the urgency score can be increase … [and] when the threshold is exceeded, an additional batch of data objects are obtained…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the scroll speed dependent fetching data size taught by Briscoe into the invention of Desia in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice, since Briscoe’s features would have improved the Desai’s fetching system as the preloading data based on user activities would have eliminated load times (col.4, lines 48-51).
Per claim 2, Desai teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the scrolling velocity is determined based on a current scroll position in the graphical user interface, a previous scroll position, a current timestamp at which the current scroll position is determined, and a previous timestamp at which the previous scroll position is determined (see [0047] that shows the velocity equation using the delta t which requires the initial time stamp.) Desai also teaches calculating the distance using “pixels, inches or pages” as the unit. [0041]
Per claim 3, Desai discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the size of the second data portion is determined based on the scrolling velocity, a minimum data portion size, a maximum data portion size, and at least one characteristic of the data source or the connection ([0035] shows the buffer is used for loading the retrieved data, thus the size of the buffer shows the max portion. The paragraph [0037] shows the no-need to retrieve when the size is too small, thus teaching the minimal size required for the retrieval based on scrolling.).
Per claim 4, Desai discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein a first characteristic of the data source comprises a data source location, a database type, a server type, or a storage technology ([0032] and [0033] show the consideration of data source for the retrieval calculation).
Per claim 5, Desai teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein a first characteristic of the connection comprises a connection type, a network type, or a device type of a receiving device (such as “from a server side” and “via a network connection” [0035-36].).
Per claim 6, Desai discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the size of the second data portion is determined based on a smoothing factor applied to the scrolling velocity ([0046] “… simulate a physical object experiencing friction”). Desai uses the friction simulations to smooth slowdown of the scrolling.
Per dependent claims 8 and 9, Desai discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the threshold portion of the second data portion is determined based on a minimum threshold, the size of the second data portion, the scrolling velocity, and a user behavior monitoring time interval; and updating the scrolling velocity of the user to an updated scrolling velocity ([0042] “... scrolling may be interrupted by another user input action that reverses direction …[also] a flick action … to stop the scrolling”).
Per dependent claim 10, Desai discloses that the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising determining a size of the third data portion based at least on the updated scrolling velocity; and including the size of the third data portion in the second data request. This is shown since as explained with respect to claim 9 above, Desai teaches reversing the scrolling directions. Since the direction is reversed, the new retrieving/loading data is required as the “velocity” is changed.
Claims 11-15 are for an apparatus, generic purpose digital computer, performing the method of claims 1-5, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 16-20 are for a computer readable medium containing instructions for performing the method of claims 1-5, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai, USPAT Pub 2014/0208259 A1 in view of the Examiner’s Official Notice and Briscoe et al., USPAT 12,079,454 B1., as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Matsuno et al, USPTA Pub 2007/0206831 A1.
Per dependent claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Desai discloses the limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 6, the rejection being incorporated herein, but does not further disclose that the wherein the smoothing factor is a logarithmic function. However, Matsuno et al teaches that it was well known for the scrolling content to use a logarithmic function to make the process smooth ([0155] “the scroll speed uses a logarithmic function …”; [0456]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Matsuno et al.’s use of logarithmic function in Desai, since Desai pointed out the need and benefit of smoothly simulating real environment and Matsuno et al. taught that the logarithmic function is one way to achieve that.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11, 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160011734-A1 2016-01-14 Reich; Robert G06F16/248 715/784
US-9021386-B1 2015-04-28 Rasmussen; Jens Eilstrup G06F3/0485 715/785
US-20130014051-A1 2013-01-10 Lefor; Todd G06F3/0485 715/787
US-6204846-B1 2001-03-20 Little; Alex Dudley G06F3/04855 715/974
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
