DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 27 September, 2024.
Claim 1 has been cancelled and Claims 2 - 22 have been added by a preliminary amendment filed on 6 December, 2024.
Claims 2 - 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Application Number 18/510,890 now U.S. Patent Number 12,136,099; which is a continuation of U.S. Application Number 18/076,656 now U.S. Patent Number 12,014,384; which is a continuation of U.S. Application Number 16/660,896 now U.S. Patent Number 11,620,896.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 –22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,099 B2 in view of Rajagopal et al.: US PGPUB 2014/0195930 A1. Although the issued claims are not identical to the pending claims, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The pending claims recite all of the limitations of the issued claims, except adding the following limitation:
(D) in response to receiving an indication that the identified item information has been displayed on the graphical user interface associated with the second user, causing the identified item information to be removed from the feed customized for the second user.
The specification discloses that, once displayed, a data item is removed from the feed; for example, by maintaining a list of displayed items, but this feature is not recited in the issued claims. Rajagopal discloses a feeder component for displaying feed items received from online social networks that includes removing a feed item after the feed item is displayed in the feeder component. (@ 0270). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have included removing feed items that have been displayed from the feed in order to prevent the need for scrolling through a lengthy feed of old items.
Claim Interpretation under U.S.C. §101
The claims recite an abstract method of organizing human activity – i.e. filtering content for display in a customized feed (i.e. a conventional social media feed) via a user interface of a second user (who is a “follower” of a first user), based on interactions of the first user with a displayed data object visual representation regarding an item, and using generic computer elements. The claims automatically push content to the second user’s interface without any action on the part of the second user. The specification discloses that this arrangement saves computer resources by: establishing a data structure that allows for more efficient data processing and transfer (@ 0005, 0202); and by: eliminating the need to search or research to find items of interest (@ 0148). Even though this functionality may be conventional, for example most social networking sites provide this functionality, the disclosure that this saves computer resources is persuasive.
Claim Interpretation in view of the Prior Art
The prior art fails to expressly teach a method for customizing an information feed of item information displayed to a second user on a user interface that includes identifying information to be provided to the second user, who is a follower of a first user, based on an interaction between the first user and a graphical representation of displayed items. In particular, the system identifies the information to be provided to the second user’s feed that relates to an item not previously displayed to the second user.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record during the prosecution of parent applications is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stone et al: U.S. Publication Number 2005/0203809 A1
Bowen: U.S. Publication Number 2010/0004980 A1
Jacobi et al: U.S. Publication Number 2001/0021914 Al
Christiansen et al: U.S. Publication Number 2010/0076844 Al
Ramsay: U.S. Publication Number 2012/0254149 Al
None of the cited references teach identifying information to be pushed to a second user related to an item not previously displayed to the second user.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 17 December, 2025