DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendments filed October 22, 2025.
Please note, claims 21-40 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues that the combination of Hughes and Sicora fail to teach “receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements; in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow the user to create the new media item, wherein one or more of the third user interfaces displays the hashtag by default.”
As to the above, Examiner respectfully submits figure 2 of Hughes is interpreted by Examiner to be the equivalent of a first user interface, wherein the user can select a hashtag, or receive a user input specifying a hashtag. Examiner respectfully submits that in response to the user selecting the hashtag of Fig. 2, Fig. 3 of Hughes is then displayed, wherein the previously selected hashtag is displayed in element 314 by default. Examiner respectfully submits that Fig. 3 of Hughes is interpreted as claimed second user interface that replaces the first user interface. Examiner respectfully submits that Sicora is introduced to further teach interacting with a “create” icon, or button, to create a new post in Col. 46, Line 62 through Col. 47, Line 12. Examiner respectfully submits Fig. 3A of Sicora further conveys said “create” button, interacted by a user to provide another interface to create a new media content item. Examiner respectfully submits Col. 47, Lines 3-12 of Sicora teaches that element 358C of Fig. 3A can correspond to a GUI to create posts, as presented in Figs. 5A-B, said GUI anticipating one or more third user interface to allow the user to create the new media item. Examiner respectfully submits that as both Hughes and Sicora contain subject matter directed towards creating content, the cited references are analogous and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the defaulted hashtag of Fig. 3 in Hughes to the creating interface as taught by Sicora. As such, Examiner respectfully maintains that the combination of references teaches every aspect of the above argued limitation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 15, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97(c) and therein have been considered. Its corresponding PTO-1449 has been electronically signed as attached.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 21-23, 25-27, 29-33, 36-38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0048544) further in view of Sicora et al. (US Pat. No. 10,684,738)
Regarding claim 21, Hughes teaches a method, comprising:
‘in response to receiving a user input specifying a hashtag in a first user interface of an application of an electronic device, replacing, for display by the electronic device, the first user interface with a second user interface that comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion’ as a user selecting a hashtag in a user interface and in response to selecting, switching to a second user interface that comprises a plurality of portions (Fig. 2-3; ¶0092-93)
‘wherein:
the first portion is configured to receive a sequence of text, and the sequence of text comprises the hashtag by default’ as a portion comprising user definable category with the text of the selected hashtag and receiving a search from a user and returning hashtags (¶0027-33, 95-96; Fig. 3)
‘and the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements for receiving one or more user interactions to create a new media item’ as a GUI for creating content (¶0027-33; Fig. 3)
‘wherein the one or more of the third user interfaces displays the hashtag by default’ wherein the previously selected hashtag is displayed in by default (Fig. 3 element 314)
‘adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as posting the new post with the associated tags (¶0092-94)
Hughes fails to explicitly teach:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’
Sicora teaches:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’ as a portion comprising a selected hashtag and displaying social media posts and product elements that include or are otherwise associated with the particular hashtag (Col. 24, Lines 25-38; Fig. 33C)
‘the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements, wherein each interactive element comprises a button controllable by a user to create a new media item’ (Col. 46, Line 62 through Col. 47, Line 12, Fig. 3A-B)
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’ as interacting with a “create” icon to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Fig. 3A)
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’ as the “create” icon leading to a GUI for an interface to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Col. 48, Line 60-Col 49, Line 4; Fig. 3A, 5A-B)
‘in response to receiving a second user interaction indicating finishing creating the new media item, adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as receiving a user interaction with the “post” button to finish the media item and to post with the designated hashtag (Col. 49, Lines 5-33; Fig. 5A-B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Sicora’s would have allowed Hughes’ to improve presentation of multiple different types of content in a GUI (Col. 1, Lines 62-65)
Regarding claim 22, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the one or more interactive elements comprise one or more of: a first interactive element controllable to access a camera accessible by the application, a second interactive element controllable to access a media library accessible by the application, or a third interactive element controllable to receive a text input’ as input subsystem to access a camera (Col. 42, Lines 59-67), accessing a photo library to access a photo to post and receiving a textual description (Col. 18, Lines 26-37; Fig. 23a)
Regarding claim 23, Sicora teaches ‘further comprising: in response to receiving the second user interaction indicating finishing creation of the new media item, providing the second user interface, wherein the new media item is displayed in the second portion of the second user interface’ as a user uploading a completed post to be stored in association with the user’s account (Col. 86, Lines 50-67
Regarding claim 25, Sicora teaches ‘further comprising: receiving a user instruction to remove the hashtag from the new media item; and removing the hashtag from the new media item’ as user controls to remove the tag from the posts (Fig. 6B; Col. 50, Lines 32-39)
Regarding claim 26, Sicora teaches ‘further comprising: receiving a user instruction to edit the hashtag; and editing the hashtag for the new media item’ as commands to edit the post, including hashtags (Fig. 8a; Col. 43, Lines 8-21)
Regarding claim 27, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the first user interface does not include the third portion’ as a portion for search results and a portion including the hashtag without a portion to create a post (Fig. 13E, 13F)
Regarding claim 29, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the plurality of media items associated with the hashtag comprise a text-based media item, a graphic media item, or a hybrid media item’ (Col. 67, Lines 53-67)
Regarding claim 30, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the search result based on the hashtag for a first user is different from a search result based on the hashtag for a second user’ as personalizing feed content specifically for a user (Col. 108, Lines 60-67)
Regarding claim 31, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the plurality of media items associated with the hashtag comprise at least one media item that was not assigned the hashtag by a user’ as plurality of media items affiliated but not tagged with the hashtag (Fig. 33A)
Regarding claim 32, Sicora teaches ‘wherein in response to receiving the user input specifying the hashtag, the method further comprises obtaining data representing the search result, and wherein the search result is generated by performing a search algorithm to identify the plurality of media items associated with the hashtag from a database of media items’ (Col. 110, Line 63-Col. 111, Line 2)
Regarding claim 33, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the data representing the search result comprises a respective ranking for each of the plurality of media items and wherein the method further comprises: displaying the plurality of media items according to respective rankings, wherein a respective ranking for a media item is determined based on features comprising one or more of: content of the media item, a relevance of the content of the media item to the hashtag, a text description for the media item, a creation time for the media item, a creator of the media item, an interaction history of the media item, or an interaction history of a user of the electronic device’ (Col. 114, Lines 17-56)
Regarding claim 36, Hughes teaches an apparatus, comprising:
‘one or more processors’ (¶0120)
‘one or more computer-readable memories coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations (¶0120) comprising:
‘in response to receiving a user input specifying a hashtag in a first user interface of an application of an electronic device, replacing, for display by the electronic device, the first user interface with a second user interface that comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion’ as a user selecting a hashtag in a user interface and in response to selecting, switching to a second user interface that comprises a plurality of portions (Fig. 2-3; ¶0092-93)
‘wherein:
the first portion is configured to receive a sequence of text, and the sequence of text comprises the hashtag by default’ as a portion comprising user definable category with the text of the selected hashtag and receiving a search from a user and returning hashtags (¶0027-33, 95-96; Fig. 3)
‘and the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements for receiving one or more user interactions to create a new media item’ as a GUI for creating content (¶0027-33; Fig. 3)
‘wherein the one or more of the third user interfaces displays the hashtag by default’ wherein the previously selected hashtag is displayed in by default (Fig. 3 element 314)
‘adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as posting the new post with the associated tags (¶0092-94)
Hughes fails to explicitly teach:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’
Sicora teaches:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’ as a portion comprising a selected hashtag and displaying social media posts and product elements that include or are otherwise associated with the particular hashtag (Col. 24, Lines 25-38; Fig. 33C)
‘the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements, wherein each interactive element comprises a button controllable by a user to create a new media item’ (Col. 46, Line 62 through Col. 47, Line 12, Fig. 3A-B)
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’ as interacting with a “create” icon to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Fig. 3A)
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’ as the “create” icon leading to a GUI for an interface to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Col. 48, Line 60-Col 49, Line 4; Fig. 3A, 5A-B)
‘in response to receiving a second user interaction indicating finishing creating the new media item, adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as receiving a user interaction with the “post” button to finish the media item and to post with the designated hashtag (Col. 49, Lines 5-33; Fig. 5A-B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Sicora’s would have allowed Hughes’ to improve presentation of multiple different types of content in a GUI (Col. 1, Lines 62-65)
Regarding claim 37, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the one or more interactive elements comprise one or more of: a first interactive element controllable to access a camera accessible by the application, a second interactive element controllable to access a media library accessible by the application, or a third interactive element controllable to receive a text input’ as input subsystem to access a camera (Col. 42, Lines 59-67), accessing a photo library to access a photo to post and receiving a textual description (Col. 18, Lines 26-37; Fig. 23a)
Regarding claim 38, Sicora teaches ‘wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving the second user interaction indicating finishing creation of the new media item, providing the second user interface, wherein the new media item is displayed in the second portion of the second user interface’ as a user uploading a completed post to be stored in association with the user’s account (Col. 86, Lines 50-67
Regarding claim 40, Hughes teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium stores programing instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
‘in response to receiving a user input specifying a hashtag in a first user interface of an application of an electronic device, replacing, for display by the electronic device, the first user interface with a second user interface that comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion’ as a user selecting a hashtag in a user interface and in response to selecting, switching to a second user interface that comprises a plurality of portions (Fig. 2-3; ¶0092-93)
‘wherein:
the first portion is configured to receive a sequence of text, and the sequence of text comprises the hashtag by default’ as a portion comprising user definable category with the text of the selected hashtag and receiving a search from a user and returning hashtags (¶0027-33, 95-96; Fig. 3)
‘and the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements for receiving one or more user interactions to create a new media item’ as a GUI for creating content (¶0027-33; Fig. 3)
‘wherein the one or more of the third user interfaces displays the hashtag by default’ wherein the previously selected hashtag is displayed in by default (Fig. 3 element 314)
‘adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as posting the new post with the associated tags (¶0092-94)
Hughes fails to explicitly teach:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’
Sicora teaches:
‘the second portion comprises a search result based on the hashtag, the search result comprises a plurality of media items associated with the hashtag’ as a portion comprising a selected hashtag and displaying social media posts and product elements that include or are otherwise associated with the particular hashtag (Col. 24, Lines 25-38; Fig. 33C)
‘the third portion comprises one or more interactive elements, wherein each interactive element comprises a button controllable by a user to create a new media item’ (Col. 46, Line 62 through Col. 47, Line 12, Fig. 3A-B)
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a first user interaction to one of the one or more interactive elements’ as interacting with a “create” icon to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Fig. 3A)
‘in response to receiving the first user interaction, providing one or more third user interfaces to allow a user to create the new media item’ as the “create” icon leading to a GUI for an interface to create a new post (Col. 46, Lines 62-Col 47, Line 12; Col. 48, Line 60-Col 49, Line 4; Fig. 3A, 5A-B)
‘in response to receiving a second user interaction indicating finishing creating the new media item, adding the hashtag to the new media item by default’ as receiving a user interaction with the “post” button to finish the media item and to post with the designated hashtag (Col. 49, Lines 5-33; Fig. 5A-B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Sicora’s would have allowed Hughes’ to improve presentation of multiple different types of content in a GUI (Col. 1, Lines 62-65)
Claim(s) 24, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0048544) Sicora et al. (US Pat. No. 10,684,738) further in view of Shah et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0328482)
Regarding claim 24, Hughes fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the new media item is displayed in a top-ranked position of the second portion relative to respective positions of the plurality of media items.’
Shah teaches ‘wherein the new media item is displayed in a top-ranked position of the second portion relative to respective positions of the plurality of media items’ as displaying objects sorted by newest (¶0134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Shah’s would have allowed Hughes’ and Sicora’s to retrieve and display the most relevant data to a user (¶0006)
Regarding claim 38, Hughes fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the new media item is displayed in a top-ranked position of the second portion relative to respective positions of the plurality of media items.’
Shah teaches ‘wherein the new media item is displayed in a top-ranked position of the second portion relative to respective positions of the plurality of media items’ as displaying objects sorted by newest (¶0134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Shah’s would have allowed Hughes’ and Sicora’s to retrieve and display the most relevant data to a user (¶0006)
Claim(s) 28, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0048544) Sicora et al. (US Pat. No. 10,684,738) further in view of Shtuchkin et al (US Pub. No. 20180188901)
Regarding claim 28, Hughes fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the third portion is a hidable third portion.’
Shtuchkin teaches ‘wherein the third portion is a hidable third portion’ as hiding one or more interface objects (¶0125)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Shtuchkin’s would have allowed Hughes’ and Sicora’s to imprive impact on cost, user efficiency and user collaboration (¶0002)
Regarding claim 34, Shtuchkin teaches ‘wherein the third portion is a hidable third portion, and the method further comprises: receiving one or more user interactions with the second portion that satisfy a threshold condition; and in response, updating the second user interface to not display the third portion’ (¶0125)
Regarding claim 35, Shtuchkin teaches ‘further comprising: determining a time duration for a display of the third portion in the second user interface; and in response to determining that the time duration exceeds a threshold time, updating the second user interface to not display the third portion’ (¶0125)
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VAN OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-7025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-4pm MT.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/VAN H OBERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166