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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 26 March 2026.
Claims 12 and 15 were canceled.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite:
in response that a trigger operation for object recommendation information corresponding to a recommended object is detected, acquiring a material type corresponding to the object recommendation information, and presenting a recommendation presentation page corresponding to the recommended object according to the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information; and
in response that a trigger operation for a service entry to a service function is detected, presenting a service page corresponding to the service function.
which appears to be a typographical error of:
in response to a trigger operation for the object recommendation information corresponding to [[a]] the at least one recommended object is detected, acquiring a material type corresponding to the object recommendation information, and presenting a recommendation presentation page corresponding to the at least one recommended object according to the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information; and
in response to a trigger operation [[for]] on a service entry [[to]] of a service function is detected, presenting a service page corresponding to the service function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-7; 18-19; and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4; 18; and 22 recite, “an entry management identification.” The term “entry management identification” is not a term of art. While paragraph [0113] of the specification recites, “the "entry management identification" is used for triggering a presentation process for the following entry aggregation page.” it does not specify what it actually is. It just specifies its function. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the term “entry management identification” to be any icon/button that is able to present content related to any of the service entries.
Claims 5-7; and 19 inherit the deficiency noted for independent claims 4; and 18, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11; 13 and 16-19; and 14 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiatt et al. (US 10,417,695 B1) in view of Velasco (US 11,494074 B1).
Claim 1 –
As per claim 1, Hiatt discloses a method comprising:
in response to an object service trigger operation, presenting an object service page (see “FIGS. 1B and 1C depict a transition between a first mode 130 and a second mode 132 of the user interface 100, according to one implementation. The transition between these modes may be responsive to a user input event” in col. 9, ll. 1-8 of Hiatt), wherein the object service page comprises a recommended-object presentation region [package art section 114] and a service function presentation region [buy section 118], the recommended-object presentation region being used for presenting object recommendation information corresponding to at least one recommended object (see “package art section 114” in col 7, ll. 23-32), and the service function presentation region being used for presenting service entries to a plurality of service functions (see “buy section 118” in col. 8, ll. 3-36; Fig. 1B and 5); and
in response to a trigger operation on a service entry of a service function is detected, presenting a service page corresponding to the service function. (see col. 11, ll. 42-62; Fig. 5)
Hiatt does not explicitly disclose the limitation below. However, Velesco teaches:
in response to a trigger operation for the object recommendation information corresponding to a recommended object of the at least one recommended object is detected, acquiring a material type corresponding to the object recommendation information, and presenting a recommendation presentation page corresponding to the recommended object according to the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information; (see “user input 104 including a swipe gesture” in col. 5, ll. 40-46; and “based on the particular text 116(2) or other content presented in the region of the first interface 102(1) to which the user input 104 was provided, the server(s) 110 may determine other text 116(5), images 114, or other content that is associated with the particular content indicated by the user input 104” in col. 6 ll. 9-30 of Velasco)
This step of Velasco is applicable to the method of Hiatt as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to interfaces displaying product information with touch interfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hiatt to include acquiring a material type corresponding to the object recommendation information as taught by Velasco. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hiatt in order to enable a user to access additional information regarding one or more items presented in a first interface without navigating away form the first interface (see col. 2, ll. 44-56 of Velesco).
Claim 2 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt does not disclose the limitation below. However, Velasco teaches a method, further comprising:
in response to a first swipe operation triggered for the recommended-object presentation region, presenting a recommendation presentation page corresponding to a target object in the at least one recommended object. (see “user input 104 including a swipe gesture” in col. 5, ll. 40-46; and “user reviews” in col. 6 ll. 9-30 of Velasco)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Hiatt is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt does not disclose the limitation below. However, Velasco teaches a method, further comprising:
in response to a second swipe operation triggered for the service function presentation region, increasing a presentation area of the service function presentation region, and hiding the recommended-object presentation region; (see “the user device 106 may present an animation 204(1), such as a perceived rotation or other type of movement associated with the content in the second region of the first interface 102(1). For example, the content within the second region of the first interface 102(1) may be provided with the appearance of a card having the second image 114(2) and second text 116(2) on a first side”; and “Navigational Control 202/Buy button” in Fig. 2) or
further comprising: in response to the second swipe operation triggered for the service function presentation region, increasing a presentation area of the service function presentation region; and in response that it is determined that the presentation area of the service function presentation region is increased to a first area threshold, hiding the recommended-object presentation region. (see “in response to user input 104 provided to change the size of an interface 102(1), the amount of information that is presented may be changed.” in col. 7, ll. 26-36 of Velasco)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Hiatt is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 3 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method, further comprising:
in response that it is determined that the presentation area of the service function presentation region is increased to a second area threshold, canceling presenting service entries to several target functions within the service function presentation region, and adding an entry management identification, and adding an entry management identification, wherein the several target functions are at least one of the plurality of service functions; (see “a compact buy section 202 is presented in place of the buy section 118. The compact buy section 202 exhibits an area within the user interface 200 that is less than that utilized by the buy section 118.” in col. 9, ll. 43-49; and “the user interface 200 may transition between the buy section 118 and the compact buy section 202.” in col. 10, ll. 4-21) and
in response to a trigger operation for the entry management identification, presenting an entry aggregation page, the entry aggregation page comprising the service entries to the several target functions. (see “The compact buy section 202 may present one or more icons that are associated with acquisition of the item or rights thereto.” in col. 9, ll. 50-65)
Claim 5 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 4 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method:
wherein the service function presentation region comprises a search service presentation region and a function identification aggregation region, the function identification aggregation region being adjacent to the search service presentation region, the search service presentation region being used for presenting a search service component, and the function identification aggregation region comprising the entry management identification. (see “The header section 102 may include information such as…search box” in col. 5, ll. 43-51; and “anchor point 120” in col. 1, ll. 3-36 and col. 9, ll. 66-col. 10, ll. 3; Examiner notes the compact buy section 202 of Hiatt can be placed and anchored anywhere in the interface, including being adjacent to header section 102 which includes the search box.)
Claim 6 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 5 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method:
wherein the service function presentation region further comprises an object aggregation section, a presentation position of the object aggregation section being lower than that of the search service presentation region, the presentation position of the object aggregation section being adjacent to that of the search service presentation region. (see “The header section 102 may include information such as…search box” in col. 5, ll. 43-51; and “anchor point 120” in col. 1, ll. 3-36 and col. 9, ll. 66-col. 10, ll. 3; Examiner notes the compact buy section 202 of Hiatt can be placed and anchored anywhere in the interface, including being adjacent to header section 102 which includes the search box.)
Claim 7 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 4 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method:
wherein the plurality of service functions comprise an object ordering service function, the object ordering service function not belonging to the several target functions, and a presentation position of a service entry to the object ordering service function being located within the function identification aggregation region. (see “The compact buy section 202 may present one or more icons that are associated with acquisition of the item or rights thereto.” in col. 9, ll. 50-65)
Claim 8 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method:
wherein the service function presentation region further comprises a search service component; (see “The header section 102 may include information such as…search box” in col. 5, ll. 43-51) and
Hiatt does not explicitly disclose the limitation below. However, Velasco teaches:
after the presenting the object service page, the method further comprises:
in response to a search request triggered by using the search service component, presenting a search result corresponding to a search character string in the search request within the service function presentation region; (see “The interface data may cause the device associated with the user to present an interface in which information regarding items that correspond to the search input is shown” in col. 2, ll. 1-43 of Velasco) or
after the presenting the object service page, the method further comprises:
in response to the search request triggered by using the search service component, switching from the object service page to a search result presentation page corresponding to the search character string in the search request, the search result presentation page being used for presenting a search result corresponding to the search character string; (see “The interface data may cause the device associated with the user to present an interface in which information regarding items that correspond to the search input is shown” in col. 2, ll. 1-43 of Velasco) or
after the presenting the object service page, the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation for the search service component, switching from the object service page to a search service page, the search service page comprising the search service component; (see “The interface data may cause the device associated with the user to present an interface in which information regarding items that correspond to the search input is shown” in col. 2, ll. 1-43 of Velasco) and
in response to the search request triggered by using the search service component in the search service page, switching from the search service page to the search result presentation page corresponding to the search character string in the search request, the search result presentation page being used for presenting the search result corresponding to the search character string. (see “The interface data may cause the device associated with the user to present an interface in which information regarding items that correspond to the search input is shown” in col. 2, ll. 1-43 of Velasco)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Hiatt is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt does not disclose the method below. However, Velsaco further teaches a method:
wherein the object service page is thereon presented with a page switching region, wherein the page switching region comprises several page tags, each page tag corresponding to a different candidate page; (see “based on the particular text 116(2) or other content presented in the region of the first interface 102(1) to which the user input 104 was provided, the server(s) 110 may determine other text 116(5), images 114, or other content that is associated with the particular content indicated by the user input 104.” in col. 6, ll. 9-30 of Velasco)
wherein in response to the object service trigger operation presenting the object service page, comprises:
in response that the object service trigger operation is a selection operation for a page tag corresponding to the object service page, using the page tag corresponding to the object service page as a currently selected page tag, and presenting the object service page; (see “The user device 106 may present a second interface 102(2) based on the second interface data 108(2).” in col. 6, ll. 31-64 of Velasco) and
after the presenting the object service page, the method further comprises:
in response to a third swipe operation triggered for the service function presentation region, determining a new currently selected page tag based on the third swipe operation, and switching the object service page to a candidate page corresponding to the new currently selected page tag. (see “Continuing the example, additional user input 104 may be provided to regions of the second interface 102(2) that include other content, such as the first text 116(1), and additional interface data 108 may be determined that replaces the region of the second interface 102(2) where the user input 104 was provided with additional text 116 or images 114.” in col. 6, ll. 31-64 of Velasco)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Hiatt is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt does not disclose the limitation below. However, Velasco further teaches a method:
wherein at least one of the recommended-object presentation region comprises object recommendation information corresponding to at least two recommended objects, the object recommendation information corresponding to the at least two recommended objects in the recommended-object presentation region being presented in carousel presentation; or
after the presenting the object service page, the method further comprises:
in response to a fourth swipe operation triggered for the recommended-object presentation region, switching presentation of the object recommendation information corresponding to the recommended object within the recommended-object presentation region. (see “Continuing the example, additional user input 104 may be provided to regions of the second interface 102(2) that include other content, such as the first text 116(1), and additional interface data 108 may be determined that replaces the region of the second interface 102(2) where the user input 104 was provided with additional text 116 or images 114.” in col. 6, ll. 31-64 of Velasco)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Hiatt is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 –
Hiatt in view of Velasco teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Hiatt further discloses a method:
wherein the material type is a detail information type, a video information stream type, or an object aggregation page type, wherein, in response that the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information is the detail information type, the recommendation presentation page corresponding to the recommended object is an object detail page corresponding to the recommended object; (see “where the item is a videogame, and the presentation section displays video of gameplay, the ratio of the width to the height may be maintained at 16:9” in col. 3, ll. 6-15; and “video clips” in col. 6, ll. 42-62)
in response that the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information is the video information stream type, the recommendation presentation page corresponding to the recommended object is a video presentation page corresponding to the recommended object; (see “where the item is a videogame, and the presentation section displays video of gameplay, the ratio of the width to the height may be maintained at 16:9” in col. 3, ll. 6-15; and “video clips” in col. 6, ll. 42-62) and
in response that the material type corresponding to the object recommendation information is the object aggregation page type, the recommendation presentation page corresponding to the recommended object is an object aggregation page corresponding to the recommended object. (see “where the item is a videogame, and the presentation section displays video of gameplay, the ratio of the width to the height may be maintained at 16:9” in col. 3, ll. 6-15; and “video clips” in col. 6, ll. 42-62)
Claims 13 and 16-19 –
Claims 13 and 16-19 are directed to a device. Claims 13 and 16-19 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1 and 2-5 which are directed towards a method. Claims 13 and 16-19 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 2-5, respectively. Furthermore, claim 13 recites a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store instructions or a computer program (see col. 15, ll. 9-17 and ll. 54-66; Fig. 9 of Hiatt).
Claims 14 and 20-22 –
Claims 14 and 20-22 are directed to a medium. Claims 14 and 20-22 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1 and 2-4 which are directed towards a method. Claims 14 and 20-22 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 2-4, respectively. Furthermore, claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having therein stored instructions or a computer program (see col. 15, ll. 9-17 and ll. 54-66; Fig. 9 of Hiatt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights