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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on September 13, 2024, March 3, 2025, and December 30, 2025, each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
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. The following title is suggested: [[INTERACTION]] METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR DIFFERENTIATING TARGET OBJECTS IN VIDEO-TRIGGERED RECOMMENDATION INTERFACES.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 2, 9, and 16 for having the following informalities. Taking claim 2 as an example, the introductory phrase “wherein in accordance with the determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying the object recommendation page in response to the recommendation trigger operation comprises” repeats limitations that are already incorporated by reference into the claim from their parent claim.
Additionally, the framing of the operations occurring within this contingent step do not make sense in the context of the specification, because the “determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying a recommendation control on a page of the target video” is supposed to occur before the displaying of the object recommendation page.
The “and/or” also raises antecedent basis problems, because it is unclear whether the determination and predetermined switching operations mentioned after the and/or refer back to those recited before the “and/or,” or to similar concepts recited in the parent claim.
Claim 2 should be amended as follows:
2. The interaction method of claim 1, wherein:
the recommendation trigger operation comprises a trigger operation on a recommendation control that is displayed on a page of the target video
is made after the predetermined switching operation is triggered on the page of the target video,but before displaying the object recommendation page.
Appropriate correction is required with respect to claim 2, and with respect to its sister claims 9 and 16 for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0339857 A1 (“Garcia Bailo”).
Claim 1
Garcia Bailo discloses an interaction method, comprising:
playing a target video associated with a first object; and
“In FIG. 8, the screenshots show a fashion-related video” with “hotspots 500e, 500f displayed at a specific time during the play back of the interactive video.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 90.
in accordance with a determination that interactive information of the target video meets a predetermined recommendation condition, displaying an object recommendation page in response to a recommendation trigger operation,
“If the viewer selects the shoe hotspot 500f, the Annotation Data 240 of the shoe hotspot 500f is displayed, as shown in the second image in FIG. 8, and the Communications Module 234 will then send an ‘event’ to the website Host 401 (here, www.shoppingcoolshoes.com) indicating the shoe hotspot 500f was selected by the user.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 90. “On receipt of the event, the website may change its display responsive to the event generated by the user.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 91. The selection of the hotspot 500f corresponds to the claimed predetermined recommendation condition, while the “event” corresponds to the claimed recommendation trigger operation.
Those reviewing this rejection are strongly encouraged to obtain the original grayscale evidence copy of FIG. 8 via Patent Center,1 or by navigating to Application No. 13/919,804 in the USPTO open data portal,2 and scrolling to the DRW.SUPP document in the Documents section.
PNG
media_image1.png
823
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A remastered version of the carousel interface from FIG. 8, optimized for the USPTO’s file wrapper system, is reproduced below:
wherein the object recommendation page displays object information of the first object and object information of a plurality of second objects;
“In the example of FIG. 8, the website changed the wallpaper image and showed a product ‘carousel’ with similar products relevant to the hotspot 500f selected by the Viewer.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 91. More specifically, the high heel shoe in FIG. 8 corresponds to the claimed first object, while the plurality of second objects correspond to the plurality of non-selected similar shoes shown in the carousel. Garcia Bailo FIG. 8.
the number of information types in the object information of the first object is greater than the number of information types in the object information of the second object,
The item corresponding to the selected hotspot 500f is displayed in the Shopping Cool Shoes interface with a picture, a title, a description, a price, a “Buy” button, and a button to add to favorites. See Garcia Bailo FIG. 8. The rest of the related items in the carousel simply have text beneath them providing their name and brand.
and/or a display mode of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from a display mode of the second object.
In addition, the display mode of the item corresponding to hotspot 500f is displayed as featured above the carousel of similar shoes, much bigger, and with a black background.
Claim 2
Garcia Bailo discloses the interaction method of claim 1,
wherein in accordance with the determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying the object recommendation page in response to the recommendation trigger operation comprises: in accordance with a determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying a recommendation control on a page of the target video; displaying the object recommendation page in response to a trigger operation on the recommendation control or a predetermined switching operation triggered on the page of the target video;
“If the viewer selects the shoe hotspot 500f, the Annotation Data 240 of the shoe hotspot 500f is displayed, as shown in the second image in FIG. 8, and the Communications Module 234 will then send an ‘event’ to the website Host 401 (here, www.shoppingcoolshoes.com) indicating the shoe hotspot 500f was selected by the user.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 90. “On receipt of the event, the website may change its display responsive to the event generated by the user.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 91.
and/or in accordance with the determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying the object recommendation page in response to the recommendation trigger operation comprises: detecting, in response to the predetermined switching operation triggered on the page of the target video, whether interactive information of the target video meets a predetermined recommendation condition; in accordance with a determination that the interactive information of the target video meets the predetermined recommendation condition, displaying the object recommendation page.
Garcia Bailo does not need to disclose the above alternative limitation in order to anticipate claim 2, because Garcia Bailo discloses at least one of the two alternatives recited in the claim, and the claim language of “and/or” only requires one of the two alternatives to be present.
Claim 3
Garcia Bailo discloses the interaction method of claim 1,
wherein the object information of the first object comprises a first type of information and a second type of information, and the object information of the second object comprises the first type of information; wherein the first type of information comprises at least one of: picture information, title introduction information, or resource attribute information; and the second type of information comprises at least one of: object evaluation information, interaction control and target identification information; wherein the interaction control is configured to trigger display of an information confirmation page of the first object, the target identification information is configured to reflect an association relationship between the first object and the target video;
As shown in the figure, the selected high heel item comprises a title, an image, and multiple buttons, including a button that initiates a transaction to purchase the item and another button to add the item to a favorites list. Garcia Bailo FIG. 8. In contrast, each of the similar shoes in the carousel are only displayed with a picture, brand, and model name. See Garcia Bailo FIG. 8.
and/or the display mode of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from the display mode of the second object comprises: a display position of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from a display position of the second object; and/or a display form of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from a display form of the second object.
Furthermore, the item corresponding to the selected trigger point is displayed outside of the carousel (where the other items are displayed), much larger than the other items, and with a different arrangement of image and title as compared to the other items. Garcia Bailo FIG. 8.
Claim 4
Garcia Bailo discloses the interaction method of claim 3,
wherein the interaction control is an ordering control; and after displaying the object recommendation page, the method further comprises:
As shown in FIG. 8, the main item is shown with a “Buy” button.
in response to a trigger operation on the ordering control of the first object, displaying the information confirmation page of the first object; and in response to a submission operation triggered on the information confirmation page, generating an order of the first object.
Garcia Bailo discloses that, in general, the user may “ultimately be directed to a website to enable purchase the product,” Garcia Bailo ¶ 74 (but only after first reaching the internal webpage to “learn more about the product” in response to selecting one of the hotspots). In other words, this discloses that the Buy button takes the user to another page in order to complete the purchase.
Claim 5
Garcia Bailo discloses the interaction method of claim 3,
wherein the object recommendation page comprises a first display region, the first display region is configured to display the object information of the first object and the object information of the plurality of second objects;
“In the example of FIG. 8, the website changed the wallpaper image and showed a product ‘carousel’ with similar products relevant to the hotspot 500f selected by the Viewer.” Garcia Bailo ¶ 91. More specifically, the high heel shoe in FIG. 8 corresponds to the claimed first object, while the plurality of second objects correspond to the plurality of non-selected similar shoes shown in the carousel. Garcia Bailo FIG. 8.
the display position of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from the display position of the second object comprises: displaying the object information of the first object at a first display position of the first display region; and displaying the object information of the second object at a display position other than the first display position;
The item corresponding to the selected hotspot 500f is displayed above the carousel, while the rest of the items are displayed inline with the carousel. Garcia Bailo FIG. 8.
and/or the display form of the object information of the first object in the object recommendation page is different from the display form of the second object comprises: highlighting a first object display region in the object recommendation page, the first object display region being used to display the object information of the first object; and not highlighting a second object display region in the object recommendation page, the second object display region being used to display the object information of the second object.
Garcia Bailo does not need to disclose the above alternative limitation in order to anticipate claim 5, because Garcia Bailo discloses at least one of the two alternatives recited in the claim, and the claim language of “and/or” only requires one of the two alternatives to be present.
Claim 6
Garcia Bailo discloses the interaction method of claim 5,
wherein highlighting the first object display region in the object recommendation page comprises: highlighting a contour line of the first object display region based on a predetermined highlight color;
As shown in FIG. 8 the main item is highlighted with a black background surrounding the entire display area for the main item.
and/or after displaying the object recommendation page, the method further comprises at least one of: in response to an interactive operation triggered for the object recommendation page, not highlighting the first object display region; in response to there being no interactive operation triggered for the object recommendation page within a predetermined duration, not highlighting the first object display region.
Garcia Bailo does not need to disclose the above alternative limitation in order to anticipate claim 6, because Garcia Bailo discloses at least one of the two alternatives recited in the claim, and the claim language of “and/or” only requires one of the two alternatives to be present.
Claims 8–13
Claims 8–13 are directed to an electronic device with general purpose computer components programmed to perform the same method as claims 1–6. Claims 8–13 are therefore rejected over the same findings as provided above, taken together with Garcia Bailo’s further disclosure of the claimed computer components. See Garcia Bailo ¶ 120.
Claims 15–20
Claims 15–20 are directed to solely the computer storage portion of the system of claims 8–13, including all of the same programs stored thereon. Accordingly, claims 15–20 are rejected over all of the same findings provided above for claims 8–13.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Bailo as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0033156 A1.
Claim 7
Garcia Bailo teaches the interaction method of claim 1,
wherein the object recommendation page comprises a first display region and a second display region,
As shown in FIG. 8, the top majority of the page includes both the selected item and the carousel of similar items as a top region, and, on a bottom region, a “View all” link, which suggests it is configured to perform the function of displaying more item information, e.g., about different items beyond the three featured in the carousel.
Garcia Bailo does not explicitly disclose that such a second region is located above the claimed first region, nor does Garcia Bailo explicitly disclose the concept of hiding such a second area before an update operation reveals it.
Marchant, however, teaches a method for displaying an analogous object recommendation page (primary content 302),
wherein the object recommendation page comprises a first display region and a second display region, the first display region is located below the second display region,
As shown in FIG. 3B, display 320 may be split into two regions, including a “primary content display area 302,” located below an “opportunistically displayed content 322” area. Marchant ¶¶ 22–23.
the first display region is configured to display the object information of the first object and the object information of the plurality of second object,
The primary content display area 302 is configured to display a list of content items. See Marchant ¶ 3.
and the second display region is configured to display at least one function item information and/or at least one recommendation item information;
Meanwhile, the opportunistically displayed content 322 may include “advertising content, an animation, and/or interactive content such as an interactive ad, interactive game, or [an] interactive animation.” Marchant ¶ 15.
displaying the object recommendation page comprises: displaying the first display region on the object recommendation page, and not displaying the second display region;
“FIG. 3A is a block diagram illustrating an example of transient user interface space. In the example shown, the display 300 includes a primary content display area 302” with “[a] transient user interface space 306 [] defined between the address/search bar 304 and a mobile (or other) device information/status bar 308 displayed at the top of display 300,” instead of the opportunistically displayed content 322. Marchant ¶ 22.
and/or after displaying the object recommendation page, the method further comprises: in response to an object recommendation page update operation, displaying an updated object recommendation page, the first display region and the second display region being displayed in the updated object recommendation page, the first display region being used to display object information of an updated third object.
“In the example shown, an indication is received to update a primary displayed content (202). For example, in an iOS or other mobile device, a touch and pull down gesture may have been performed by a user and interpreted by the device to be associated with a pull-to-refresh input. In response, a display area associated with updating the primary content, but in which primary content is not (currently) displayed, is created (204) . . . . The display space that has been created is made available to be used to display content other than the primary (e.g., mobile app) content (206).” Marchant ¶ 21; see also ¶ 23 (discussing the depiction of the foregoing process in FIG. 3B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Garcia Bailo’s shopping user interface with Marchant’s refresh interaction technique. One would have been motivated to improve Garcia Bailo’s user interface with Marchant’s technique because “[u]sers may perform such refresh interactions very frequently, and often can be observed to look at the mobile device display while waiting for the application content to be refreshed.” Marchant ¶ 4. That is, upon learning the foregoing about users, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to take advantage of this common interaction in the manner discussed in Marchant’s disclosure.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected over the same findings and rationale provided above for claim 7, taken together with the additional findings provided for parent claim 8 in the earlier rejection thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 https://data.uspto.gov/ui/download/applications/13919804/09323b6781631d33/files/24087_US_Drawings.pdf
2 https://data.uspto.gov/patent-file-wrapper/search/details/13919804/
Prosecution Insights