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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 11/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 12/17/2024 and 02/09/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although the prior art (Linden US 2016/0171588 A1) discloses the independent inventions, the particular limitations recited in dependent claims 4-7, 9, and 16-20 are not disclosed or obvious over the most relevant prior art found, as noted in the Conclusion.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 each recite "the target displaying area" in their second limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner will interpret this limitation as reciting “the target showing area”. The dependent claims are also rejected based upon the deficiencies noted in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claim whose BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 12 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of “computer-readable storage medium” recited in claim 12 includes signal per se. For example, ¶ [0099] of the Specification states that the computer program product “includes a computer program carried by a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, but the Specification does not limit “computer-readable storage medium” as being exclusively non-transitory. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret claim 12 as reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and being directed to a manufacture.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 13 are directed to a method, claims 10-11 and 14-20 are directed to systems, and claim 12 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1 and 47 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary of the independent claims, recites abstract concepts including: showing a content sharing page, wherein the content sharing page comprises at least one showing area; one showing area is used for showing one piece of experience assessment information; and the experience assessment information is used for recommending an object; and showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information, wherein the target displaying area is a showing area where the triggered experience assessment information is displayed; the target object is an object recommended by the triggered experience assessment information; and the abstract information comprises at least part of attribute information of the target object.
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “showing a content sharing page”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10-12 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 10-12 recite additional elements including: an interaction apparatus; an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The apparatus, electronic device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of transmitting and receiving information) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1 and 10-12 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1 and 10-12 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-20 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional elements including: the experience assessment information comprises a link; and showing a detail page of the target object corresponding to the selected link. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. implementation on the Internet). Accordingly, claim(s) 8, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Claim 17 recites additional elements including: a first terminal and a second terminal. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the first and second terminals are described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. Furthermore, transmitting data (i.e. providing a picture”) has been repeatedly considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claim(s) 17, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linden (2016/0171588 A1).
Claim 1
“Linden” discloses an interaction method, comprising:
showing a content sharing page, wherein the content sharing page comprises at least one showing area; one showing area is used for showing one piece of experience assessment information; and the experience assessment information is used for recommending an object (See ¶ [0150] personalized product page including comments, ratings, and product image”; FIG. 7); and
showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information (See ¶ [0162] user is directed to summary of product information in response to a selection of a co-user) , wherein the target showing area is a showing area where the triggered experience assessment information is displayed (see Fig. 6 showing Susan icon 618 besides Apple iPhone 5c then see Fig. 7 showing “abstract information” including new camera and fast speed); the target object is an object recommended by the triggered experience assessment information (See ¶ [0163] user-specific product information summary can include recommendations for the corresponding product); and the abstract information comprises at least part of attribute information of the target object (Fig. 7, see “longer chassis and the lighter weight”).
Claim 2
Linden discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. Linden further discloses wherein the showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information comprises:
in a case where the experience assessment information currently shown in the target showing area comprises at least two pieces of first image information and a last piece of first image information of the experience assessment information is currently being shown in the target showing area, showing the abstract information of the target object in the target showing area in response to a triggering operation for the last piece of first image information (see Fig. 6 the last image 618 for Apple iPhone 5C is selected; ¶ [0163] update GUI 600 in response to selection of Susan’s picture from the product information summary).
Claim 3
Linden disclose the interaction method according to claim 1. Linden further discloses wherein the experience assessment information comprises first label information; and the showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information comprises: showing the abstract information of the target object in the target showing area in response to a triggering operation for the first label information in the one piece of experience assessment information (¶ [0163] update GUI in response to selection of Susan’s name from the product information summary).
Claim 8
Linden discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. Linden further discloses, wherein: in a case where the experience assessment information is currently being shown in the target showing area and the experience assessment information comprises a link of the target object, and the interaction method further comprises: showing a detail page of the target object corresponding to the selected link in response to a selection operation for the link of the target object (¶ [0094] link to product profile page within a social networking post)
Claims 10 and 11, which are directed to machines, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 1. Claims 10 and 11 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 12, which are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 1. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 13
Linden discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. Linden further discloses wherein in a case where the experience assessment information is currently being shown in the target showing area and the experience assessment information comprises a jump control corresponding to the target object, the interaction method further comprises: showing a detail page of the target object corresponding to the selected jump control in response to a selection operation for the jump control of the target object (¶¶ [0150]-[0151] selectable link to a product page associated with the product).
Claim 14
Linden discloses the electronic device according to claim 11. Linden further discloses wherein the showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information comprises: in a case where the experience assessment information currently shown in the target showing area comprises at least two pieces of first image information and a last piece of first image information of the experience assessment information is currently being shown in the target showing area, showing the abstract information of the target object in the target showing area in response to a triggering operation for the last piece of first image information (see Fig. 6 the last image 618 for Apple iPhone 5C is selected; ¶ [0163] update GUI 600 in response to selection of Susan’s picture from the product information summary).
Claim 15
Linden discloses the electronic device according to claim 11. Linden further discloses wherein the experience assessment information comprises first label information; and the showing abstract information of a target object in a target showing area in response to a triggering operation for one piece of experience assessment information comprises: showing the abstract information of the target object in the target showing area in response to a triggering operation for the first label information in the one piece of experience assessment information (¶ [0163] update GUI in response to selection of Susan’s name from the product information summary).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Butcher et al. (US 11,080,358 B2) describes methods and devices for collecting and surfacing web content in collections.
Chen (US 2022/0172229 A1) relates to an opinion evaluation system.
Dermu (US 11,562,014 B1) is related to social networking interfaces including conventional scrolling interfaces of images and related text (captions).
M. S. AlSayed Abdulrahman and M. A. Khder (NPL Reference U) has a main purpose to implement a mobile application that allows users to share their real experiences by providing a platform where only customers can write reviews and discuss an issue with any service, or a business enabling other consumers to trust these reviews and use it as a source to get to know these businesses.
Melo et al. (US 2017/0270588 A1) describes a computer system and method for processing and arranging a presentation of reviews for an item.
Lavasanijou et al. (US 2023/0230144 A1) describes techniques for identifying and/or presenting reviews associated with items over the internet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights