Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
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.
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2011/0283236 (published 17 November 2011) (“Beaumier”).
Claim 13 is drawn to “a method of information recommendation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Beaumier reference.
Claim 13
The Beaumier Reference
“13. A method of information recommendation, comprising:
The Beaumier reference similarly describes a method and system for recommending music to a user. Beaumier at ¶ 92.
“in response to a received associated recommendation request, determining a selected object identification corresponding to the associated recommendation request;
determining selected object information based on the selected object identification;
Beaumier describes presenting a multi-dimensional (e.g., 3D) dynamic page to a user. The page presents a set of music objects representing a musical genre, artist, album or song. Id. at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. When the user clicks on a music object, it causes Beaumier’s system to determine which object was clicked in order to access tags, or selected objection information, associated with the clicked object. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a. Beaumier’s system is implemented in a distributed way with a central server 906 that receives requests from a client 902 and provides responses. Beaumier at ¶¶ 52–56, 74, 91, FIGs.2, 9.
“determining at least one associated recommendation object based on a similarity between a candidate recommendation object and the selected object identification,
“obtaining associated recommendation information of the associated recommendation object,
Beaumier then generates a set of floating objects, or selection presenting controls, based on the selected music object and its associated tags, or associated recommendation information. Id. Each floating object includes associated recommendation information, such as its tag strength and the name of the object. Beamier sizes each floating object based on the strength of its relationship to a tag and then positions the floating object around the currently selected music object. Id.
“wherein the similarity is determined in advance and stored based on the selected object information;
Beaumier describes determining similarity between music in advance of a user request and storing the similarity in a database. Id. at ¶ 97, FIG.10.
“sending the selected object information and the associated recommendation information of the at least one associated recommendation object to a client.”
The portion of Beaumier’s software that manages generation of each floating object sends the floating object information to a client (i.e., portion of the jukebox software that manages the dynamic update of a 3D page). See id. at ¶¶ 84–85. The 3D-page managing client then updates the page with floating objects that display a name and are sized and positioned based on their relationship to the selected music object. Id. at ¶¶ 84–87, FIGs.8a, 8b. For example, a user may click on a grunge rock genre music object, causing a set of floating artist nodes to appear, with the size, position and name of each node being based on its relevance to the genre object. Id. at ¶ 87, FIG.8B.
“in response to a received recommendation object obtaining request, determining a selected type identification corresponding to the recommendation object obtaining request; and
“sending a core recommendation object of a baseline recommendation type corresponding to the selected type identification to a client.”
Beaumier similarly describes determine a set of floating recommended objects to show when a user clicks on a music object node (e.g., a genre) by evaluating the tags associated with items and the selected type. Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 85, FIG.8a. Beaumier adjusts the size of the floating object nodes to account for strength of tag matching, such that one floating object node having the greatest strength represents a core recommendation object. See id. One tag described by Beaumier is popularity, indicating the use of popularity to determine tag strength. Id. at ¶¶ 81, 90, 100, 129, 130. Thus, Beaumier fairly describes determining a core recommendation object (i.e., a highest ranked object) based on popularity. See id. Beaumier also describes sending that object to a client for display. See id. at ¶¶ 52–56, 74, 91, FIG.9.
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Beaumier reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: obtaining a baseline recommendation object corresponding to each of a plurality of baseline recommendation types; and
“determining, for each baseline recommendation type, a core recommendation object corresponding to the baseline recommendation type based on a popularity of a plurality of baseline recommendation objects of the baseline recommendation type, and
“determining a similarity between the plurality of baseline recommendation objects based on evaluation information of the plurality of baseline recommendation objects in a plurality of evaluation dimensions.”
Beaumier similarly describes determine a set of floating recommended objects to show when a user clicks on a music object node (e.g., a genre) by evaluating the tags associated with items and the selected type. Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 85, FIG.8a. Beaumier adjusts the size of the floating object nodes to account for strength of tag matching, such that one floating object node having the greatest strength represents a core recommendation object. See id. One tag described by Beaumier is popularity, indicating the use of popularity to determine tag strength. Id. at ¶¶ 81, 90, 100, 129, 130. Thus, Beaumier fairly describes determining a core recommendation object (i.e., a highest ranked object) based on popularity. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the Beaumier reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: in response to a received recommendation type obtaining request, determining a part of baseline recommendation types as a candidate recommendation type based on recommendation levels of the baseline recommendation type; and
“sending the candidate recommendation type to the client.”
Beaumier similarly describes determine a set of floating recommended objects to show when a user clicks on a music object node (e.g., a genre, or type) by evaluating the tags associated with items and the selected type. Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 85, FIG.8a. Beaumier adjusts the size of the floating object nodes to account for strength of tag matching, such that one floating object node having the greatest strength represents a core recommendation object. See id. One tag described by Beaumier is popularity, indicating the use of popularity to determine tag strength. Id. at ¶¶ 81, 90, 100, 129, 130. Thus, Beaumier fairly describes determining a core recommendation object (i.e., a highest ranked object) based on popularity. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the Beaumier reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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 1–9, 11, 12, 19 and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beaumier and StackExchange.com, What Is Better for UX – Hiding or Disabling Irrelevant Buttons, https://web.archive.org/web/20220611000232/https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107513/what-is-better-for-ux-hiding-or-disabling-irrelevant-buttons (last accessed 09 October 2026) (archived 11 June 2022) (“SE”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beaumier, SE and US 2011/0164057 (published 07 July 2011) (“Prabhu”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a method of information recommendation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Beaumier reference.
Claim 1
The Beaumier Reference
“1. A method of information recommendation, comprising:
The Beaumier reference similarly describes a method and system for recommending music to a user. Beaumier at ¶ 92.
“in response to a detected object selection operation, determining selected object information corresponding to a selected object identification and an associated recommendation information of at least one associated recommendation object;
Beaumier describes presenting a multi-dimensional (e.g., 3D) dynamic page to a user. The page presents a set of music objects representing a musical genre, artist, album or song. Id. at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. When the user clicks on a music object, it causes Beaumier’s system to determine recommendation information, such as tags, related to the clicked control and that are associated with other music objects that may be recommended to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a.
“generating a plurality of selection presenting controls based on the selected object information and the associated recommendation information,
Beaumier then generates a set of floating objects, or selection presenting controls, based on the selected music object and its associated tags, or associated recommendation information. Id.
“determining a plurality of selection recommendation controls based on the plurality of selection presenting controls and a current display control in a current display page; and
Beamier sizes each floating object based on the strength of its relationship to a tag and then positions the floating object around the currently selected music object. Id.
“generating, based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls, a selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented, and presenting the selection recommendation page dynamically,
Beaumier dynamically updates the 3d page with the sized and positioned floating objects. For example, a user may click on a grunge rock genre music object, causing a set of floating artist nodes to appear, with the size and position of each node being based on its relevance to the genre. Id. at ¶ 87, FIG.8B.
“wherein a selected object control corresponding to the selected object identification is replaced with the plurality of selection presenting controls and other control in the current display page is still presented.”
Beaumier, however, does not describe replacing the clicked music object with the plurality of floating objects, or selection presenting controls.
Table 2
As shown in the table above, the Beaumier reference describes a method corresponding closely to the claimed method. The Beaumier reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because it does not describe replacing a selected object control with a plurality of selection presenting controls while continuing to present other (i.e., unselected) controls.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Beaumier reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Beaumier is drawn in part to the field of graphical user interfaces—namely, Beaumier describes a method and system to display a multi-dimensional dynamic page for recommending music. Beaumier at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. One aspect of Beaumier’s method and system includes displaying a set of user-selectable music objects, or controls, corresponding to an artist, genre, album, etc. Id. When the user clicks on a music object, it causes Beaumier’s system to determine recommendation information, such as tags, related to the clicked control and that are associated with other music objects that may be recommended to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a. Beaumier then generates a set of floating objects, or selection presenting controls, based on the selected music object and its associated tags, or associated recommendation information. Id. Beamier sizes each floating object based on the strength of its relationship to a tag and then positions the floating object around the currently selected music object. Id. Beaumier dynamically updates the 3d page with the sized and positioned floating objects. See id. For example, a user may click on a grunge rock genre music object, causing a set of floating artist nodes to appear, with the size and position of each node being based on its relevance to the genre. Id. at ¶ 87, FIG.8B. Beaumier, however, does not describe replacing the clicked music object with the plurality of floating objects, or selection presenting controls.
The SE reference, like Beaumier, is drawn to the field of GUIs. The SE reference includes a discussion of whether it is better to hide irrelevant buttons or to disable them. SE at 1–3. The discussion shows that each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Id. Read in total, the SE reference teaches that after a GUI control element becomes irrelevant (e.g., the GUI control element has been activated to reveal a lower hierarchical menu, such as Beaumier’s related musical elements) may be followed by either disabling the element or hiding it. Id. The choice will turn on the preferences of the designer. See id. For example, a designer would elect to simply disable the control to allow a user to always find the button; but another designer might choose to hide/replace the button to prevent a user from becoming overloaded with irrelevant information. See id.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Beaumier’s GUI to hide a selected control after it is selected. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying the SE reference’s known technique of hiding irrelevant controls to Beaumier’s GUI to predictably reduce cognitive load of a user). For example, once a user has clicked on an artist control, it would be hidden according to the teachings of the SE reference and, based on the teachings of Beaumier, it would be effectively replaced with the floating objects that “explode” out of the object. See Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 103, FIGs.8a, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the in response to the detected object selection operation comprises:
“in response to an object selection operation triggered by a user on the current display page.”
Similarly, Beaumier describes detecting when a user clicks on a musical object that is currently being displayed in a 3D page. Beaumier at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the generating the selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls comprises at least one of the following:
“adjusting, based on a positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls and according to a predetermined movement rule, a presentation position of a selection recommendation control in the selection recommendation page, so that the selection recommendation control with the adjusted presentation position is dynamically presented in the selection recommendation page; or
“adjusting, based on the positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls, the presentation position of the selection recommendation control in the selection recommendation page randomly, so that the selection recommendation control with the adjusted presentation position is dynamically presented in the selection recommendation page.”
Beaumier describes using positions of a selected music object (i.e., selected object information) to present floating objects (i.e., associated recommendation controls) according to a rule that centers them around the selected music object with positions that are based on their relevance to the selected music object. Id. at ¶¶ 80, 84–87, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the selection presenting control comprises a selected object control corresponding to the selected object information and a plurality of associated recommendation controls corresponding to the associated recommendation information, and
“the determining the plurality of selection recommendation controls based on the plurality of selection presenting controls and the current display control in the current display page comprises:
“using both the plurality of selection presenting controls and the current display control in the current display page as the selection recommendation control; and
“the positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls comprises:
“presenting the plurality of associated recommendation controls centered around the selected object control; or
“presenting the plurality of associated recommendation controls sequentially in adjacent rows of the selected object control.”
Beaumier describes using positions of a selected music object (i.e., selected object information) to present floating objects (i.e., associated recommendation controls) centered around the selected music object. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented comprises a plurality of selection recommendation sub-pages, and
“the generating the selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls, and presenting the selection recommendation page dynamically comprises:
“generating, based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls, at least two frames of selection recommendation sub-page presented based on a temporal order; and
“presenting, based on a presenting order of the at least two frames of selection recommendation sub-page, the at least two frames of selection recommendation sub-page in sequence.”
Beaumier describes presenting each music object in a page-like manner, with recommendations for each page, which are displayed in sequence. Beaumier at ¶¶ 102–103, FIGs.11, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“before the in response to the detected object selection operation, further comprising:
“obtaining a core recommendation object corresponding to a target recommendation type,
“generating a core object control corresponding to the core recommendation object, wherein the core object control presents a core object identification of the core recommendation object;
“generating a core object recommendation page based on a plurality of core object controls, and presenting the core object recommendation page on a display page; and
“the in response to the detected object selection operation comprises:
“in response to a trigger operation by a user on the core object control in the core object recommendation page.”
Beaumier similarly describes determining a set of genres, or types, and identifying core recommendation objects and controls for those objects. In particular, Beaumier stores a set of genres, such as jazz and rock and associates artists with each genre based on the strength of tags shared between the genre and the artists. Beaumier at ¶¶ 87–87, FIGs.8a, 8b. Accordingly, when a user clicks on any of a genre, artist or album music object, a set of related artists, or core object controls, are presented as floating objects. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the obtaining the core recommendation object corresponding to the target recommendation type comprises:
“requesting from a server to obtain the core recommendation object corresponding to a default recommendation type; or
“in response to a detected type selection operation, requesting from the server to obtain the core recommendation object corresponding to a selected type identification.”
Similarly, Beaumier describes requesting information (e.g., songs, profiles and tags) from a server concerning genres and associated artists. Beaumier at ¶¶ 52–56, 74, 91. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“before the in response to the detected type selection operation, further comprising:
“obtaining a candidate recommendation type, generating a candidate recommendation control corresponding to the candidate recommendation type, wherein the candidate recommendation control presents a recommendation type identification of the candidate recommendation type; and
“generating a type recommendation page based on a plurality of candidate recommendation controls corresponding to a plurality of candidate recommendation types, and presenting the type recommendation page on a display page.”
Beaumier similarly describes determining a set of genres, or types, and identifying core recommendation objects and controls for those objects. In particular, Beaumier stores a set of genres, such as jazz and rock and associates artists with each genre based on the strength of tags shared between the genre and the artists. Beaumier at ¶¶ 87–87, FIGs.8a, 8b. Accordingly, when a user clicks on any of a genre, artist or album music object, a set of related genres, artists or albums (i.e., candidate recommendation controls) are presented as floating objects. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: in response to the detected type selection operation, determining trigger type information corresponding to a trigger type identification; and
“generating a type trigger control based on the trigger type information, presenting the type trigger control dynamically in the type recommendation page.”
Beaumier similarly describes determining a set of genres, or types, and identifying core recommendation objects and controls for those objects. In particular, Beaumier stores a set of genres, such as jazz and rock and associates artists with each genre based on the strength of tags shared between the genre and the artists. Beaumier at ¶¶ 87–87, FIGs.8a, 8b. Accordingly, when a user clicks on any of a genre, artist or album music object, a set of related genres, artists and albums (i.e., type trigger controls), are presented as floating objects. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: in response to a terminal rotation operation, rotating the current display page for display adapted to the terminal rotation operation, wherein a display control in the current display page adaptively changes dynamically.”
Beaumier describes a jukebox system. Beaumier at Abs., ¶¶ 52, 176–177, FIG.26. Some embodiments contemplate forming the jukebox in a handheld format. Id. at ¶ 206. The Prabhu reference describes a handheld device for browsing and playing music. Prabhu at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 4, 5, 34, 35, 43, FIGs.1, 2. Prabhu describes detecting the orientation of the device and rotating the display. Id. For example, if the device is rotated from a portrait orientation to a landscape orientation, the display is updated to present additional information. Id. Prabhu teaches that this facilitates a user’s ability to browse for music by selectively displaying additional information based on a device’s orientation. Id. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Beaumier’s jukebox system to include a handheld jukebox capable of detecting orientation and rotating the display appropriately. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would allow a user to intuitively display an appropriate amount of information by rotating the handheld device. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier, the SE and the Prabhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the selection presenting control is circular.”
Beaumier similarly describes shaping controls as circles. Beaumier at ¶ 85, FIG.8A. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the object is a performer, and the type being a music genre.”
Beaumier describes presenting objects that correspond to artists and objects that correspond to genres. Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 87, FIGs.8a, 8b. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 is drawn to “an electronic device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Beaumier reference.
Claim 19
The Beaumier Reference
“19. An electronic device, comprising:
The Beaumier reference similarly describes a method and system for recommending music to a user. Beaumier at ¶ 92.
“at least one processor; a storage device configured to store at least one program; and when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement acts comprising:
Beaumier’s system includes programmed processors to execute a jukebox method. Id. at ¶¶ 120, 126.
“in response to a detected object selection operation, determining selected object information corresponding to a selected object identification and an associated recommendation information of at least one associated recommendation object;
Beaumier describes presenting a multi-dimensional (e.g., 3D) dynamic page to a user. The page presents a set of music objects representing a musical genre, artist, album or song. Id. at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. When the user clicks on a music object, it causes Beaumier’s system to determine recommendation information, such as tags, related to the clicked control and that are associated with other music objects that may be recommended to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a.
“generating a plurality of selection presenting controls based on the selected object information and the associated recommendation information,
Beaumier then generates a set of floating objects, or selection presenting controls, based on the selected music object and its associated tags, or associated recommendation information. Id.
“determining a plurality of selection recommendation controls based on the plurality of selection presenting controls and a current display control in a current display page; and
Beamier sizes each floating object based on the strength of its relationship to a tag and then positions the floating object around the currently selected music object. Id.
“generating, based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls, a selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented, and presenting the selection recommendation page dynamically,
Beaumier dynamically updates the 3d page with the sized and positioned floating objects. For example, a user may click on a grunge rock genre music object, causing a set of floating artist nodes to appear, with the size and position of each node being based on its relevance to the genre. Id. at ¶ 87, FIG.8B.
“wherein a selected object control corresponding to the selected object identification is replaced with the plurality of selection presenting controls and other control in the current display page is still presented.”
Beaumier, however, does not describe replacing the clicked music object with the plurality of floating objects, or selection presenting controls.
Table 3
As shown in the table above, the Beaumier reference describes a device corresponding closely to the claimed device. The Beaumier reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because it does not describe replacing a selected object control with a plurality of selection presenting controls while continuing to present other (i.e., unselected) controls.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Beaumier reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Beaumier is drawn in part to the field of graphical user interfaces—namely, Beaumier describes a method and system to display a multi-dimensional dynamic page for recommending music. Beaumier at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. One aspect of Beaumier’s method and system includes displaying a set of user-selectable music objects, or controls, corresponding to an artist, genre, album, etc. Id. When the user clicks on a music object, it causes Beaumier’s system to determine recommendation information, such as tags, related to the clicked control and that are associated with other music objects that may be recommended to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a. Beaumier then generates a set of floating objects, or selection presenting controls, based on the selected music object and its associated tags, or associated recommendation information. Id. Beamier sizes each floating object based on the strength of its relationship to a tag and then positions the floating object around the currently selected music object. Id. Beaumier dynamically updates the 3d page with the sized and positioned floating objects. See id. For example, a user may click on a grunge rock genre music object, causing a set of floating artist nodes to appear, with the size and position of each node being based on its relevance to the genre. Id. at ¶ 87, FIG.8B. Beaumier, however, does not describe replacing the clicked music object with the plurality of floating objects, or selection presenting controls.
The SE reference, like Beaumier, is drawn to the field of GUIs. The SE reference includes a discussion of whether it is better to hide irrelevant buttons or to disable them. SE at 1–3. The discussion shows that each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Id. Read in total, the SE reference teaches that after a GUI control element becomes irrelevant (e.g., the GUI control element has been activated to reveal a lower hierarchical menu, such as Beaumier’s related musical elements) may be followed by either disabling the element or hiding it. Id. The choice will turn on the preferences of the designer. See id. For example, a designer would elect to simply disable the control to allow a user to always find the button; but another designer might choose to hide/replace the button to prevent a user from becoming overloaded with irrelevant information. See id.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Beaumier’s GUI to hide a selected control after it is selected. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying the SE reference’s known technique of hiding irrelevant controls to Beaumier’s GUI to predictably reduce cognitive load of a user). For example, once a user has clicked on an artist control, it would be hidden according to the teachings of the SE reference and, based on the teachings of Beaumier, it would be effectively replaced with the floating objects that “explode” out of the object. See Beaumier at ¶¶ 84, 103, FIGs.8a, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein the in response to the detected object selection operation comprises: in response to an object selection operation triggered by a user on the current display page.”
Similarly, Beaumier describes detecting when a user clicks on a musical object that is currently being displayed in a 3D page. Beaumier at ¶ 84, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein the generating the selection recommendation page to be dynamically presented based on the plurality of selection recommendation controls comprises at least one of:
“adjusting, based on a positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls and according to a predetermined movement rule, a presentation position of a selection recommendation control in the selection recommendation page, so that the selection recommendation control with the adjusted presentation position is dynamically presented in the selection recommendation page; or
“adjusting, based on the positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls, the presentation position of the selection recommendation control in the selection recommendation page randomly, so that the selection recommendation control with the adjusted presentation position is dynamically presented in the selection recommendation page.”
Beaumier describes using positions of a selected music object (i.e., selected object information) to present floating objects (i.e., associated recommendation controls) according to a rule that centers them around the selected music object with positions that are based on their relevance to the selected music object. Id. at ¶¶ 80, 84–87, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23, and further requires the following:
“wherein the selection presenting control comprises a selected object control corresponding to the selected object information and a plurality of associated recommendation controls corresponding to the associated recommendation information, and the determining the plurality of selection recommendation controls based on the plurality of selection presenting controls and the current display control in the current display page comprises:
“using both the plurality of selection presenting controls and the current display control in the current display page as the selection recommendation control; and
“the positional relationship of the plurality of selection recommendation controls comprises:
“presenting the plurality of associated recommendation controls centered around the selected object control; or
“presenting the plurality of associated recommendation controls sequentially in adjacent rows of the selected object control.”
Beaumier describes using positions of a selected music object (i.e., selected object information) to present floating objects (i.e., associated recommendation controls) centered around the selected music object. Id. at ¶¶ 84–86, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Beaumier and the SE references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–15, 19 and 22–24 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Indefiniteness
Applicant’s Reply has amended claim 12 in a way that obviates the previous indefiniteness rejection of claim 12. (Non-Final Rejection at 19 (19 May 2026). The indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (19 August 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 9–12 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection (19 May 2026). Applicant’s comments concerning claim 1 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Concerning claim 13, Applicant comments that the Beaumier reference at ¶ 85 describes the use of a predefined formula for determining weighting, such that it does not determine similarity in advance. (Reply at 11). However, the quoted portion of Beaumier further describes setting weights by an authorized user simple aggregation of user-specified tags or the use of a predefined formula. The quoted passage plainly teaches a set of alternatives including a determination made in advance by an authorized user or through aggregation of user-specified tags.
Applicant comments that Beaumier’s weightings change over time. (Reply at 11). The claim does not exclude weightings, or determinations of similarity, that change over time. The only requirement is that a similarity is determined in advance and then stored without limiting how far in advance the determination is made relative to another substantial processing step, such as requesting the similarity information. Thus, Beaumier’s weightings correspond to the claimed similarity that is determined in advance because the weightings are set by an authorized user or through aggregation of user provided tags.
Applicant comments that Beaumier is silent concerning a baseline recommendation type or core recommendation objects. This comment does not address the rejection. Beaumier describes a user clicking on a genre object (i.e., a recommendation object obtaining request), determining the selected genre (i.e., determining a selected type identification corresponding to the recommendation object obtaining request) and presenting a most popular music item (i.e., core recommendation object of a baseline recommendation type) corresponding to the user-selected genre (i.e., the selected type identification). Beaumier at ¶¶ 81, 84, 85, 90, 100, 129, 130, FIG.8a. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively established any error in the Office action, and all the rejections will be maintained.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
10/9/2026
Prosecution Insights