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 .
The amendment filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 in the amendment.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 04/30/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Further, applicant argued the cited combination of Anima, Spivack, and NPL fails to disclose or suggest “in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt”.
In response to applicant’s argument, Anima discloses in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt ([0051]: determines whether the input was to close the user interface element; if it was determined in block 512 that the input and instruction to close the user interface element then the method 500 closes 514 the user interface element).
Applicant argued Spivack does not disclose “the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association”.
In response to applicant’s argument, Spivack discloses, in paragraph 196, a default ‘Friendcasting Assistant’ allows a user x to specify rules that will automatically repost a message from another user under certain conditions. For example, a user x can define that all messages that match a pattern y (such as having a certain hashtag like, ‘#cast’, @ tag, + tag, and/or containing certain keywords or strings or URLs, and/or originating from a user u that matches whitelist W) will be automatically reposted by user x. Spivack teaches repost the message that contains URLs from another user. Therefore, Spivack discloses the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association.
Applicant argued NPL does not disclose “an indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending”.
In response to applicant’s argument, NPL discloses, in page 2, the user selects “Include Original Post”, then the sharing post would include the other user’s post/original post/text that the user typed in to be shared from the other user (the circled text) in page 3. The text that the profile/page/other user typed in to be shared corresponds to a comment provided by the second user. Therefore, NPL discloses “an indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending”.
Applicant argued the proposed combination lacks a proper motivation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,697 B2 in view of NPL titled “How To: Include Original Posts When Sharing Links on Facebook”, hereinafter NPL, in view of Anima et al. (US 2019/0121518 A1).
Instant Application
Patent (US 12,132,697 B2)
A method of recommendation comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined recommendation condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a recommendation prompt for recommending a post, the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association;
in response to the post being previously recommended by the second user, presenting the recommendation prompt along with an indication that the post is recommended by the second user, wherein the indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending;
in response to a recommendation request by the first user, causing the post to be recommended, wherein the post is recommended to a plurality of users with an association with the first user; and
in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt.
A method of reposting comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined repost condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a repost prompt for reposting a post, the predetermined repost condition comprising at least one of the following:
the post is previously reposted by a second user and the first and second users have an association, or
a number of times that the first user completely views the post exceeds a first threshold number;
in response to a repost request by the first user, causing the post to be reposted; and
in response to a determination that a number of times that the first user does not repost after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the repost prompt.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein presenting the repost prompt comprises:
in response to the post being previously reposted by the second user, presenting the repost prompt along with an indication that the post is reposted by the second user.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein
the post is reposted by a plurality of users with an association with the first user, the plurality of users including the second user, and
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the recommendation prompt comprises:
presenting the recommendation prompt in a user interface that presents the post.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the repost prompt comprises:
presenting the repost prompt in a user interface that presents the post.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein
the post is reposted by a plurality of users with an association with the first user, the plurality of users including the second user, and
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
4.The method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to a determination that the second user provides a comment while recommending, presenting the comment alternately with the indication and the recommendation prompt.
5. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to a determination that the second user provides a repost comment while reposting, presenting the repost comment, the indication, and the repost prompt in an alternating manner.
5.The method of claim 4, further comprising:
in response to the recommending by the first user, presenting an interface element for adding a comment alternately with the indication, the recommendation prompt and the comment, so that the first user can add a comment related to the recommending,
the indication being updated to further indicate that the post is recommended by the first user.
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
in response to the reposting by the first user, presenting an interface element for adding a repost comment, the indication, the repost prompt, and the repost comment in an alternating manner,
the indication being updated to further indicate that the post is reposted by the first user.
6.The method of claim 5, further comprising:
in response to the first user providing a comment to the post, ceasing presenting the interface element.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising:
in response to a repost comment being provided by the first user to the post, ceasing presenting the interface element.
7.The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a determination that a number of times that the first user does not recommend after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt.
1. A method of reposting comprising:
…
in response to a determination that a number of times that the first user does not repost after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the repost prompt.
8.An electronic device comprising:
at least one processing unit; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to perform actions comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined recommendation condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a recommendation prompt for recommending a post, the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association;
in response to the post being previously recommended by the second user, presenting the recommendation prompt along with an indication that the post is recommended by the second user, wherein the indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending; and
in response to a recommendation request by the first user, causing the post to be recommended, wherein the post is recommended to a plurality of users with an association with the first user.
9. An electronic device comprising:
at least one processing unit; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to carry out acts comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined repost condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a repost prompt for reposting a post, the predetermined repost condition comprising at least one of the following:
the post is previously reposted by a second user and the first and second users have an association, or
a number of times that the first user completely views the post exceeds a first threshold number;
11. The electronic device of claim 10, wherein presenting the repost prompt comprises:
in response to the post being previously reposted by the second user, presenting the repost prompt along with an indication that the post is reposted by the second user.
in response to a repost request by the first user, causing the post to be reposted; and
12. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein
the post is reposted by a plurality of users with an association with the first user, the plurality of users including the second user, and
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
in response to a determination that a number of times that the first user does not repost after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the repost prompt.
9.The electronic device of claim 8, wherein presenting the recommendation prompt comprises:
presenting the recommendation prompt in a user interface that presents the post.
10. The electronic device of claim 9, wherein presenting the repost prompt comprises:
presenting the repost prompt in a user interface that presents the post.
10. The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
12. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein
the post is reposted by a plurality of users with an association with the first user, the plurality of users including the second user, and
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
11.The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the actions further comprise:
in response to a determination that the second user provides a comment while recommending, presenting the comment alternately with the indication and the recommendation prompt.
13. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the acts further comprise:
in response to a determination that the second user provides a repost comment while reposting, presenting the repost comment, the indication, and the repost prompt in an alternating manner.
12. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the actions further comprise:
in response to the recommending by the first user, presenting an interface element for adding a comment alternately with the indication, the recommendation prompt and the comment, so that the first user can add a comment related to the recommending,
the indication being updated to further indicate that the post is recommended by the first user.
14. The electronic device of claim 13, wherein the acts further comprise:
in response to the reposting by the first user, presenting an interface element for adding a repost comment, the indication, the repost prompt, and the repost comment in an alternating manner,
the indication being updated to further indicate that the post is reposted by the first user.
13. The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the actions further comprise:
in response to the first user providing a comment to the post, ceasing presenting the interface element.
15. The electronic device of claim 14, wherein the acts further comprise:
in response to a repost comment being provided by the first user to the post, ceasing presenting the interface element.
14. The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the actions further comprise:
in response to a determination that the number of times that the first user does not recommend after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt.
9. An electronic device comprising:
…
in response to a determination that a number of times that the first user does not repost after providing positive evaluations on viewed posts exceeds a second threshold number, ceasing presenting the repost prompt.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, the computer program, when executed by a processor, performing actions comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined recommendation condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a recommendation prompt for recommending a post, the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association;
in response to the post being previously recommended by the second user, presenting the recommendation prompt along with an indication that the post is recommended by the second user, wherein the indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending; and
in response to a recommendation request by the first user, causing the post to be recommended, wherein the post is recommended to a plurality of users with an association with the first user;
in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, the computer program, when executed by a processor, carrying out the method of claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-15, US12,132,697 B2, hereinafter Wang, in view of NPL, and US 2019/0121518 A1, hereinafter Anima, disclose recommending a post in claims 1-15.
Wang does not explicitly disclose indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user.
NPL discloses, in page 3, now you’ll see the other profile page’s post show back up in the share you are doing, the other profile page’s post include text that the profile/page typed in to be shared with the link.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of NPL in system in order to allow user to share a post shared by another user.
Wang and NPL do not explicitly disclose in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt.
Anima discloses determine whether the input was to close the user interface element; if it was determined in block 512 that the input and instruction to close the user interface element then the method 500 closes 514 the user interface element ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Anima in and NPL system in order to enhance user experience and save resources by closing interface as requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anima et al. (US 2019/0121518 A1), hereinafter Anima, in view of Spivack et al. (US 2015/0256636 A1), hereinafter Spivack, and further in view of NPL titled “How To: Include Original Posts When Sharing Links on Facebook”, hereinafter NPL.
Regarding claim 1, Anima discloses
A method of recommendation comprising:
in response to a determination that a predetermined recommendation condition is satisfied, presenting, to a first user, a recommendation prompt for recommending a post ([0070]: when the user selects the reshare button of the third post, the user interface element is updated from the user interface element of FIG. 12 to the user interface element of FIGS. 15A and 15B; FIG. 15B shows an updated user interface element including an in-line re-share flow; the in-line re-share flow includes a comment of box, the original post, portions of the webpage, address box, and action buttons; selection of the re-share button causes the original post along with the comments from the user to be re-shared in the social network application), and
in response to a recommendation request by the first user, causing the post to be recommended, wherein the post is recommended to a plurality of users with an association with the first user ([0070]: selection of the re-share button causes the original post along with the comments from the user to be re-shared in the social network application);
in response to the first user exiting a user interface presenting the post, ceasing presenting the recommendation prompt ([0051]: determines whether the input was to close the user interface element; if it was determined in block 512 that the input and instruction to close the user interface element then the method 500 closes 514 the user interface element).
Anima does not explicitly disclose
the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association.
However, Spivack discloses
the predetermined recommendation condition comprising a condition that the post is previously recommended by a second user and the first and second users have an association ([0196]: a friend casting engine which provides a default ‘Friendcasting Assistant’; this assistant allows a user x to specify rules that will automatically repost a message from another user under certain conditions; for example, a user x can define that all messages that match a pattern y (such as containing URLs) will be automatically reposted by user x; URLs corresponds to the post; message contains URLs corresponds to the post is previously reposted by a second user).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Spivack to Anima, because Anima discloses re-share a post ([0070]) and Spivack further suggests automatically reposting a message with URLs from another user ([0196]).
One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Spivack in Anima system in order to allow user to share a post/message shared by another user when the post/message matches condition/pattern as desired.
Anima and Spivack do not explicitly disclose
in response to the post being previously recommended by the second user, presenting the recommendation prompt along with an indication that the post is recommended by the second user, wherein the indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending.
However, NPL discloses
in response to the post being previously recommended by the second user, presenting the recommendation prompt along with an indication that the post is recommended by the second user, wherein the indication is associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending (page 3, Now you’ll see the other profile page’s post show back up in the share you are doing; other profile/page’s post corresponds as indication associated with a comment provided by the second user while recommending).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of NPL to Anima and Spivack, because Anima and Spivack disclose re-share a post (Anima: [0070]) and NPL further suggests present post shared by other user (NPL: page 3).
One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of NPL in Anima and Spivack system in order to allow user to share a post shared by another user.
Regarding claim 2, Anima, Spivack, and NPL disclose the method of recommendation as described in claim 1. Anima further discloses
presenting the recommendation prompt in a user interface that presents the post (FIG. 15B & [0070]: FIG. 15B shows an updated user interface element including an in-line re-share flow; the in-line re-share flow includes a comment of box, the original post, portions of the webpage, address box, and action buttons; selection of the re-share button causes the original post along with the comments from the user to be re-shared in the social network application).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations of claims 8 and 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations of claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anima in view of Spivack, in view of NPL, and further in view of Fushman et al. (US 2015/0134808 A1), hereinafter Fushman.
Regarding claim 3, Anima, Spivack, and NPL disclose the method as described in claim 2. Anima, Spivack, and NPL do not explicitly disclose
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users.
However, Fushman discloses
the indication comprises an identifier of a first group of users from the plurality of users and a number of a second group of users from the plurality of users, to indicate that the post is reposted by the plurality of users ([0045]: reshare can include reshare user identifiers corresponding to those recipient users who reshared the shareable link, and reshare target identifiers corresponding to those user and/or group identifiers to which the shareable link was reshared).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Fushman to Anima, Spivack, and NPL, because Anima, Spivack, and NPL disclose re-share a post (Anima: [0070]) and Fushman further suggests reshare can include reshare target identifiers according to the group identifiers to which the shareable link was reshared ([0045]).
One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Fushman in Anima, Spivack, and NPL system in order to keep track of sharing/resharing.
Regarding claim 4, Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman disclose the method of the recommendation as described in claim 3. Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman further disclose
in response to a determination that the second user provides a comment while recommending, presenting the comment alternately with the indication and the recommendation prompt (NPL: Figures & page 2, Find a post of a link you’d like to share that you also want the text that the profile/page typed in to be shared with it (the stuff in the green circle is what we don’t want to lose here)). Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 5, Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman disclose the method of the recommendation as described in claim 4. Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman further disclose
in response to the recommending by the first user, presenting an interface element for adding a comment alternately with the indication, the recommendation prompt and the comment, so that the first user can add a comment related to the recommending (Anima: FIG. 15B shows an updated user interface element including an in-line re-share flow; the in-line re-share flow includes a comment of box, the original post, portions of the webpage, address box, and action buttons; the comment box includes a picture or icon representing the first user and an area for the user to input comments related to the re-share; selection of the re-share button causes the original post along with the comments from the user to be re-shared in the social network application),
the indication being updated to further indicate that the post is recommended by the first user (NPL: page 4: Sylvester Computer Guy reposted the post with comment “FYI”). Therefore, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 6, Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman disclose the method of recommendation as described in claim 5. Anima, Spivack, NPL, and Fushman further disclose
in response to the first user providing a comment to the post, ceasing presenting the interface element (Anima: FIG. 15B shows an updated user interface element including an in-line re-share flow; the in-line re-share flow includes a comment of box, the original post, portions of the webpage, address box, and action buttons; the comment box includes a picture or icon representing the first user and an area for the user to input comments related to the re-share; selection of the re-share button causes the original post along with the comments from the user to be re-shared in the social network application; & NPL: page 2, Press the Share button as usual, but what you’re looking for is this little arrow in the bottom-right of the text box where you type in what you want to say about the link; before the user select the little arrow, cease presenting the original post). Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the limitations of claims 10 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the limitations of claims 11 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations of claims 12 and 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations of claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al. (US 10,547,675 B1). Determine the video was previously shared comprises analyzing the attribution tag that includes an association between the video and the second user to indicate that the video was previously shared by the second user.
Schigel et al. (US 2009/0234876 A1). Provides an indication of what content the sharer’s friends have shared recently.
Bradley et al. (US 2016/0277352 A1). A prompt is generated and presented to user A to review content shared by user C and to select a particular shared content from user C to “like” in response to user A not having indicated liking any content shared by user C over a preset time period.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
07/02/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights