DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
3. Claim 20 recites a method includes the steps “in response to the preset search request, in a case of not finding target associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, searching for recommended associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, wherein the recommended associated information does not have the preset interaction relationship with the current user.” However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed only when their conditions precedent are met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Exparte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Sabin (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 16/723,088), at 2-3; Ex parte Baltar (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/714,480) at 5; Ex parte Silvestre (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/532,953) at 11; and Ex parte Banescu (PTAB 2021) (App. S.N. 14/898,856) at 12 (supporting the interpretation that "based on" limitations are conditional).
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to “in a case of” limitation.
As such, the limitations followed by “in a case of” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner’s Note
4. As stated in the “claim interpretation” section above, the limitations followed by “in a case of” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, rejections for these limitations are provided below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
5. Claims 1-15, 19, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parsons et al. (US 2008/0301237 A1).
As in Claim 1, Parsons teaches an information presentation method, comprising:
in response to that a preset entry is triggered, determining target associated information corresponding to the preset entry, wherein the target associated information comprises associated information having a preset interaction relationship with a current user and comprising information associated with a preset content (FIG. 9, pars. 167 -174, 181-182, with the selection of payloads button 920 or entering search text into search text 930, the system displays payload browning interface 900 including payload browser 960, which presents an array of thumbnails 970, 970’ representing each payload. Each of the payload comprises associated information having interactions/feedback (e.g., forwarding note 976,976’ comment 987, 987’, or tagged as favorite, etc.) related to a user/account user and information associated with the payload/content (e.g., title in par. 98); further see pars. 97-99); and
displaying a target interface, wherein the target interface is configured to present at least one piece of target associated information (FIG. 9, pars. 167 -174, 181-182, the payload browser 960 displays the array of thumbnails 970, 970’ representing each payload, and each payload displays its respective title and may display other indicators or feedback).
As in Claim 2, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Parsons further teaches that after displaying the target interface: presenting the at least one piece of target associated information on the target interface (see at least FIG. 9 and pars. 167 -174, 181-182).
As in Claim 3, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Parsons further teaches: in response to first target associated information being presented meets a first preset requirement, displaying first preset prompt information on a first associated position of the first target associated information, wherein the first preset prompt information is configured to indicate that the first target associated information contains new interaction information that comprises interaction information posted after the preset interaction relationship being formed (pars. 173, 191-193, a number of new comments 987, 987’ associated with the payload can be indicated. The comment activity is tracked, and the system can determine comments added since the user’s last login or alternatively, since the user last viewed the payload in detail).
As in Claim 4, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Parsons further teaches that the new interaction information comprises at least one of the following:
interaction information posted after the preset interaction relationship being formed, for which the current user has not performed a view operation; or interaction information posted after the preset interaction relationship being formed and meeting a preset presenting condition (see at least pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claim 3).
As in Claim 5, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Parsons further teaches that one of the following:
for historical interaction information for the first target associated information, the current user has performed a view operation meeting a first preset condition; for the first target associated information, the current user has performed an interaction operation; or an effective duration of the first preset prompt information corresponding to the first target associated information is less than a first preset duration (see at least pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claim 3).
As in Claim 6, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Parsons further teaches: wherein, in response to the first target associated information being presented meets the first preset requirement, displaying the first preset prompt information on the first associated position of the first target associated information (pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claim 3), comprises:
in response to the first target associated information being presented meets the first preset requirement but does not meet a first preset filtering condition, displaying the first preset prompt information on the first associated position of the first target associated information (pars. 173, 183, 185-186, 191-193, comments, including new comments, can be received from the user of the account and from other users who share the payloads, such that the comments are received not only from the user of the account but also from other users).
As in Claim 7, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Parsons further teaches that first preset filtering condition comprises:
at least one of a poster of the first target associated information and a poster of preset content corresponding to the first target associated information has a preset associated relationship with the current user (Parsons, see at least pars. 173, 191-193).
As in Claim 8, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Parsons further teaches that the first preset prompt information comprises a number of pieces of new interaction information (FIG. 9, pars. 173, 191-193, the new comments 987 (i.e., 2 new comments), 987’ (i.e., 1 new comments)).
As in Claim 9, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Parsons further teaches: after displaying the first preset prompt information:
in response to a trigger operation for the first preset prompt information, entering a first preset presenting interface (FIGS. 9-10, par. 175, with a selection of any of the payload thumbnails 970, 970’, a detailed view 100 of the selected payload is displayed as shown in FIG. 10); and
presenting at least one piece of new interaction information on the first preset presenting interface (at least pars. 183-188, 192-193, comments or notes associated with the payload can appear below the payload 1004. Further, the user may enter a new comment by pressing a comment button 1042).
As in Claim 10, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Parsons further teaches that presenting the at least one piece of new interaction information on the first preset presenting interface comprises:
presenting the first target associated information on the first preset presenting interface, and presenting the at least one piece of new interaction information in an associated area of the first target associated information (FIG. 10, pars. 175-178, 181-193,the title 1002 and the comments can be displayed on the detailed view 100 of the selected payload).
As in Claim 11, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Parsons further teaches: in response to second target associated information being presented meets a second preset requirement, displaying second preset prompt information on a second associated position of the second target associated information, wherein the second preset prompt information is configured to indicate that preset content corresponding to the second target associated information contains new associated information that comprises associated information posted after the present interaction relationship is formed (pars. 173, 191-193, a number of new comments 987, 987’ associated with the payload can be indicated. The comment activity is tracked, and the system can determine comments added since the user’s last login or alternatively, since the user last viewed the payload in detail).
As in Claim 12, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Parsons further teaches that the new associated information comprises at least one of the following:
associated information posted after the preset interaction relationship being formed, for which the current user has not performed a view operation; or associated information posted after the preset interaction relationship being formed and meeting a preset presenting condition (see at least pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claims 3 and 11).
As in Claim 13, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Parsons further teaches that least one of the following:
for historical associated information of a preset content corresponding to the second target associated information, the current user has performed a view operation meeting a second preset condition;
a view operation performed by the current user for historical associated information of preset content corresponding to the second target associated information meets a third preset condition;
for preset content corresponding to the second target associated information, the current user has posted associated information containing a first preset character; or
an effective duration of the second preset prompt information corresponding to the second target associated information is less than a second preset duration (see at least pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claim 5).
As in Claim 14, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Parsons further teaches that wherein, in response to the second target associated information being presented meets the second preset requirement, displaying the second preset prompt information on the second associated position of the second target associated information (pars. 173, 191-193 and further see the rejection of claim 3), comprises:
in response to the second target associated information being presented meets the second preset requirement but does not meet a second preset filtering condition, displaying the second preset prompt information on the second associated position of the second target associated information (pars. 173, 183, 185-186, 191-193, comments, including new comments, can be received from the user of the account and from other users who share the payloads, such that the comments are received not only from the user of the account but also from other users), wherein the second preset prompt information comprises: a number of pieces of the new associated information (FIG. 9, pars. 173, 191-193, the new comments 987 (i.e., 2 new comments), 987’ (i.e., 1 new comments))..
As in Claim 15, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 14. Parsons further teaches that the second preset filtering condition comprises at least one of the following:
a poster of the second target associated information has a preset associated relationship with the current user; a poster of preset content corresponding to the second target associated information has the preset associated relationship with the current user; or the preset content corresponding to the second target associated information has a preset attribute (Parsons, see at least pars. 173, 191-193).
As in Claim 19, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Parsons further teaches:
in response to a trigger operation for a third target associated information being presented, entering an associated information presenting interface (see at least FIGS. 5-8 and at least pars. 142, 154, 165, 168, with a user input, the system can display user registration interface 500, payload creation form 600, or image properties dialog 700 for entering information for the payload); and
setting, on the associated information presenting interface, a presenting progress of an associated information list as (see at least FIGS. 5-8):
presenting the third target associated information on a preset target position, wherein at least one of the following is met:
the preset content comprises a preset media work;
the associated information comprises comment information; or
the preset interaction relationship comprises that a user has input a preset interaction operation for associated information, the preset interaction operation comprising at least one of a like operation, an operation of adding to favorites, a mark operation, or a forwarding operation (see at least FIGS. 5-8 and at least 149-158, 165-168, 175, 181, the user may enter various information, including note/comment and title, and the payload that can be presented via the payload browsing interface 900 of FIG. 9 and the detailed view 1000 of FIG. 10 ).
Claims 25 and 26 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (US 2008/0301237 A1) in view of Mora et al. (US 2022/0198077 A1).
As in Claim 17, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Parsons further teaches: after displaying the second preset prompt information (pars. 173, 191-193, the new comments 987, 987)’:
in response to a trigger operation for the second preset prompt information, entering a second preset presenting interface (FIGS. 9-10, par. 175, with a selection of any of the payload thumbnails 970, 970’, a detailed view 100 of the selected payload is displayed as shown in FIG. 10); and
presenting at least one new associated information on the second preset presenting interface (at least pars. 183-188, 192-193, further see the rejection of claim 9).
Parsons does not appear to explicitly teach that wherein presenting the at least one piece of target associated information on the target interface comprises: presenting at least two pieces of target associated information in a preset sorting manner; wherein the preset sorting manner comprises at least one of the following: a sorting manner based on a chronological order of posting times; or a sorting manner based on numbers of users having the preset interaction relationship and corresponding to a same target associated information.
However, in the same field of the invention, Mora teaches that wherein presenting the at least one piece of target associated information on the target interface comprises:
presenting at least two pieces of target associated information in a preset sorting manner; wherein the preset sorting manner comprises at least one of the following:
a sorting manner based on a chronological order of posting times; or
a sorting manner based on numbers of users having the preset interaction relationship and corresponding to a same target associated information (par. 36, the annotations can be organized/sorted according to various criteria, including chronological or reverse chronological order according to the time of creation, by category, or by creator).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the feedback information (e.g., comments, favorites, tagging, etc.,) of the payloads displayed on the payload browning interface, as taught by Parsons, and to provide a way to organize or sort the annotations in chronological order according to the time of creation, by category, or by creator, as taught by Mora. The motivation is to organize annotations in chronological order based on their creation times, making it easier to navigate and review according to when they were created.
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (US 2008/0301237 A1) in view of Gilad et al. (US 2015/0188869 A1).
As in Claim 20, Parsons teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Parsons does not teach: in response to a preset search request, searching for fourth target associated information matching a search keyword in the preset search request; and presenting the fourth target associated information, wherein the method further comprising: in response to the preset search request, in a case of not finding target associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, searching for recommended associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, wherein the recommended associated information does not have the preset interaction relationship with the current user; and presenting at least one of the following: the recommended associated information; or a content identifier of recommended preset content corresponding to the recommended associated information.
However, in the same field of the invention, Gilad teaches: in response to a preset search request, searching for fourth target associated information matching a search keyword in the preset search request; and presenting the fourth target associated information, wherein the method further comprising: in response to the preset search request, in a case of not finding target associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, searching for recommended associated information matching the search keyword in the preset search request, wherein the recommended associated information does not have the preset interaction relationship with the current user; and presenting at least one of the following: the recommended associated information; or a content identifier of recommended preset content corresponding to the recommended associated information (par. 125, the searching feature involves receiving a search query and identifying and displaying one or more messages that satisfy the query, such as identifying an email containing the term “shoe” in response to a search for “shoe”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the feedback information (e.g., comments, favorites, tagging, etc.,) of the payloads displayed on the payload browning interface, as taught by Parsons, and to present the search result matching the search terms, as taught by Gilad. The motivation is to find relevant items (e.g., messages) and accurate information more efficiently, while getting better results based on the specific search terms used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights