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 .
Priority
The present application has claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 from Chinese Patent Application No. CN202311228466.2 filed 9/21/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 9/20/2024 and 2/28/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the term “disclosure.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because object 109 of figure 10 is spelled “Commuication Device” instead of “Communication Device.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of detecting a trigger operation.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the detecting a trigger operation are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of presenting a displayed page, however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding presenting are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of detecting a trigger operation.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the presenting a displayed page, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. Rasanen et al (US20080086747A1; filed 12/18/2006) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the presenting is: paragraph 3: “The Internet is an increasingly popular resource for obtaining entertainment media and information. There are an incredible number of sources on the Internet that provide various types of media.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim has similar presenting and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 3, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of determining a presentation mode. The determining a presentation mode is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This claim also has similar presenting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 4, this claim has similar presenting (switching displays and displaying identifiers are all just displaying content) and determining steps and is rejected similarly to claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 5, this claim has similar presenting/displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1. This claim also recites an additional element of a selection operation.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding a selection operation are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the selection operation is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. The receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, this claim has similar presenting and detecting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1. This claim recites an additional element of playing a video.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding playing a video are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the playing a video is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. Rasanen et al (US20080086747A1; filed 12/18/2006) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the playing is: paragraph 3: “The Internet is an increasingly popular resource for obtaining entertainment media and information. There are an incredible number of sources on the Internet that provide various types of media, such as downloadable television episodes and movies, or streaming television previews and movie trailers.” The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, this claim has similar presenting (the object recommendation page regions are being presented) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 8, this claim has similar presenting and trigger operation and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 9, this claim has similar presenting and trigger operation and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 10, this claim has similar presenting and trigger operation and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claims 11-19 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-9 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales. These claims recite additional elements of processors and storage devices with programs.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding processors and storage devices with programs are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processors and storage devices with programs are not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. The processors and storage devices with programs are considered merely applying the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 11 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasanen et al (US20080086747A1; filed 12/18/2006).
With regards to claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses An interaction method, comprising: in response to a predetermined operation (Rasanen et al, paragraph 42: “In some embodiments, display 200 is displayed a result of user selection of listing 118 in display 100 (FIG. 1)”), presenting an object recommendation page (Rasanen et al, fig. 2: page 200), the object recommendation page comprising recommendation information respectively corresponding to a plurality of recommended objects, and the recommendation information comprising multimedia recommendation information of the recommended object (Rasanen et al, paragraph 13: “A subset of the available online videos may be selected based on the scope narrowing mechanism described above, keyword searches, user personalization data, or editor's preference designations. The selected online videos may be displayed in a media listing, such as in a video mosaic or a textual listing;” Fig. 2: multiple media listings 228 are displayed with associated images and star ratings);
and in response to detecting a trigger operation for the multimedia recommendation information of a recommended object, presenting a multimedia content page corresponding to the recommended object, the multimedia content page being used for playing multimedia recommendation information corresponding to the recommended object (Rasanen et al, paragraph 50: “Each listing 228 may be a selectable frame… upon a user selection of a selectable frame, the user is directed to the website where the corresponding video may be downloaded or streamed”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses wherein the recommendation information comprises an attribute region, an operation control region and a multimedia information region, the attribute region is used for presenting attribute information of the recommended object (Rasanen et al, Fig. 2: Star rating for each object), the operation control region is used for presenting an entry control of an operation corresponding to the recommended object (Rasanen et al, paragraph 50: “Each listing 228 may be a selectable frame… upon a user selection of a selectable frame, the user is directed to the website where the corresponding video may be downloaded or streamed”), and the multimedia information region is used for presenting the multimedia recommendation information (Rasanen et al, Fig 2: Image #1-4 which represent the objects).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Rasanen et al discloses presenting an entry presentation page comprising a presentation mode switching entry; and in response to a trigger operation for a presentation mode label in the entry presentation page, presenting an object recommendation page corresponding to the triggered presentation mode label (Rasanen et al, fig. 2: There are multiple ways to interpret a “presentation mode switching entry”, such as the arrows 236 and 234, the selection of a Genre 214, a change in the sorting method 238. All of these change the way the objects are presented);
or in response to a sliding operation on the entry presentation page and a track or an end position of the sliding operation meeting a set condition, determining a presentation mode currently displayed by the presentation mode switching entry as the target presentation mode, and presenting an object recommendation page corresponding to the target presentation mode (Rasanen et al does not appear to teach a sliding or scrolling feature other than the arrow buttons 234 and 236, but this limitation is optional due to the ‘or’).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Rasanen et al discloses wherein the presentation mode switching entry displays an identifier of a presentation mode corresponding to a currently presented object recommendation page, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation for an identifier of the presentation mode currently displayed by the presentation mode switching entry, displaying identifiers of a plurality of presentation modes (Rasanen et al, paragraph 43: “The category may be selected based on user indication or may default to being selected. In the selected state, there may be a window 214 of selectable criteria elements 212 corresponding to the selected category. The window may be situated under the name of the category to indicate which category is selected. With a user input device, a user may select a criteria element 212 in window 214 (e.g., by moving highlighted region 216 to a desired criteria element and pressing a key or by directly clicking the desired criteria element). Once selected, in addition to being displayed within window 214, the selected criteria element may appear at 218. That is, it may appear below its corresponding category 210 and above window 214”),
wherein a presentation order of the identifiers of the plurality of presentation modes is determined based on predetermined priorities (Rasanen et al, Fig. 2: the Genre categories are listed in alphabetical order).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 2, Rasanen et al discloses presenting an object recommendation page comprising a presentation mode switching entry, the presentation mode switching entry displaying an identifier of a presentation mode corresponding to a currently displayed object recommendation page; in response to a trigger operation for the presentation mode switching entry, presenting identifiers of a plurality of presentation modes; in response to a selection operation for an identifier of a target presentation mode from the identifiers of the plurality of presentation modes, presenting the object recommendation page corresponding to the target presentation mode (Rasanen et al, paragraph 43: “Left column 202 provides a list of selectable categories 210. The categories may include genre, channels, shows, hotlists, type (e.g., television episode, movies, etc.), or any other such category. One of the categories may be in a selected state. The category may be selected based on user indication or may default to being selected.” Fig. 2: categories 210 can be selected to show the corresponding elements. The identifier of the presentation mode is interpreted as one of the selected criteria (218 and 222), and the trigger operation for the presentation mode switching entry is interpreted as the user selecting a category).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses wherein in response to detecting the trigger operation for the multimedia recommendation information of the recommended object (Rasanen et al, paragraph 50: “Each listing 228 may be a selectable frame”), presenting a multimedia content page corresponding to the recommended object comprises: in response to detecting the trigger operation for the multimedia recommendation information of the recommended object, presenting a multimedia content page corresponding to the recommended object, and playing, in the multimedia content page, a video associated with the recommended object that is from the corresponding presentation mode (Rasanen et al, paragraph 50: “upon a user selection of a selectable frame, the user is directed to the website where the corresponding video may be downloaded or streamed.”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses wherein the object recommendation page further comprises information to be recommended (Rasanen et al, Fig 2: each listing 228 includes information for recommended multimedia objects), regions where the information to be recommended and recommendation information of the recommended object are located are independent from each other (Note: neither the “information to be recommended” nor the “recommendation information” are really defined in a way which would distinguish them from each other, so they merely need to be distinct objects, and located somewhere which can be interpreted as “independent” from each other; Rasanen et al, Fig. 3: Textual description 308 and rating 304 are interpreted as being independent of each other because they are on separate areas of the listing), and data sources of the information to be recommended and recommendation information of the recommended object are independent from each other (Rasanen et al, paragraph 46: “A video may be represented by graphical identifier 302 (e.g., a thumbnail/screenshot of the video, a preview of the video, the video itself, etc.). A rating 304 for the video may be overlaid on part of graphical identifier 302. The rating may reflect rating designations from all users who have rated the video from their respective media guidance applications or a related/affiliate program”).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses presenting an entry presentation page in which a predetermined amount of object set entry recommendation information matching a current user type is presented (Rasanen et al, Fig. 2: the page is interpreted as the entry presentation page), wherein the object set entry recommendation information is presented based on a target combination style corresponding to the current user type, and the target combination style is used to indicate a page presentation position and a size corresponding to each piece of the object set entry recommendation information (Rasanen et al, paragraph 61: “Customization of the media guidance application may be made in accordance with a user profile. The customizations may include varying presentation schemes (e.g., color scheme of displays, font size of text, etc.), aspects of media content listings displayed (e.g., recommended media content, etc.), aspects of criteria elements displayed (e.g., ordering of categories or criteria elements, etc.), parental control settings, and other desired customizations”); and in response to a trigger operation for object set entry recommendation information in the entry presentation page, presenting an object recommendation page of the triggered object set entry recommendation information (Rasanen et al, paragraph 42: “In some embodiments, display 200 is displayed a result of user selection of listing 118 in display 100 (FIG. 1)”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses presenting an entry presentation page in which activity recommendation information is presented, the activity recommendation information comprising at least one activity entry and an activity set entry (Rasanen et al, Fig. 9A-9B: Channels (activity sets) and shows (activities) are shown as being selectable; alternatively the activity set could be the “News” genre while the individual new channels could be activities); and in response to a trigger operation for the activity set entry, presenting an activity set content page corresponding to the activity set entry; or in response to a trigger operation for the activity entry, presenting a target activity content page corresponding to the triggered activity entry (Rasanen et al, paragraph 73: “In FIG. 9A, the news criteria element of the genre category and the Comedy Central criteria element of the channels category have been selected, and criteria elements of the channel category are displayed. This results in 139 videos, as is consistent with Venn diagram 700”).
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Rasanen et al discloses in response to a first trigger operation on a region where first recommendation information is located, hiding the first recommendation information, and presenting set function entry recommendation information; or in response to a second trigger operation on a region where the set function entry recommendation information is located, hiding the set function entry recommendation information, and presenting the first recommendation information (Rasanen et al, paragraph 130: “Upon receiving a user selection at step 1704, if the selection is a category other than the currently selected category, the window corresponding to the currently selected category may be closed at step 1708 (e.g., window 814 of FIG. 8B);” the set function entry recommendation information is interpreted as one of the windows (812, 814, 826) which is closed when another category is selected, and the new window of another category is presented as the first recommendation information); wherein the first trigger operation is a sliding operation along a first direction on a region where the first recommendation information is located, the second trigger operation is a sliding operation along a second direction on a region where the set function entry recommendation information is located, and the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Rasanen et al does not disclose this, but it is an optional limitation because of the ‘or’); or a set control is displayed in the region where the first recommendation information is located or the region where the set function entry recommendation information is located, and the first trigger operation or the second trigger operation is a trigger operation for the set control (Rasanen et al, paragraph 130: “Upon receiving a user selection at step 1704, if the selection is a category other than the currently selected category, the window corresponding to the currently selected category may be closed at step 1708 (e.g., window 814 of FIG. 8B). A new window is presented (e.g., window 826 of FIG. 8C), and selectable criteria elements corresponding to the newly selected category are displayed within the new window (step 1710).” The set control (the selection of a category) is displayed in the left panel (the region)).
Note: The claims and the specification do not explicitly define what the “set function entry” is, so examiner is just interpreting as a form of input to the GUI.
Claims 11-19 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-9 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lesandro et al (US 20120054095 A1): Teaches pagination and sorting of search results, and allowing a user to set how many results to see per page.
Hwang et al (US8498984B1): Teaches the categorization and sorting of search results in a list.
Huyghe et al (US20190340252A1): Teaches a user interface for sorting and filtering media items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights