Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024, 12/23/2024, 12/23/2024, 12/23/2024, 12/23/2024, 12/23/2024, and 05/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims improperly depend from a cancelled claim (claim 1) . For prior art rejection all claims depending from cancelled claim 1 will depend from the immediate interdependent claim 2, except for claim 6 which depends from claim 5 while claim 5 depends from claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 for example recite(s):
Displaying icon sets that organize icons wherein the icons are dynamically changing videos.
Organizing those icons into sub-categories of a category
Re-organizing the icons in a different manner after user selection
Initiating an icon operation after a further user selection
These are steps taken in to Organize visual items, presenting them in a different manner or layout based on user input and launching an associative action.
It tracks very closely with:
Organizing and presenting information
User-interface navigation
Menu selection and command initiation
Which have been repeatedly held as abstract ideas (e.g. Content presentation, Menu hierarchies, selection logic).
Even the “dynamically changing videos” only describe what is displayed and how its altered over time by criteria-It does not show how the computer is improved technically.
The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea (organizing and presenting information via user interface).
The one or more processors causing the device to display and allowing user triggering of re-organization and operations do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself in other words the generic computer processor performing expected user interface operations described purely in functional terms fail to be significantly more than the abstract idea of (organizing and presenting information via user interface).
Claim 16 is therefore non-statutory under USC 35. 101.
Similar rationale applies to independent claims 2 and 9.
The dependent claims add particularity and depth to their independent claims but considering their limitations alone or in combination with the independent claims do not rise up to be significantly more than the abstract ides of (organizing and presenting information via user interface).
Therefore claims 2-21 are non-statutory under USC 35. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis, USPG_Pub. 20070192794, in view of Vaysman, USPG_Pub. 20070011702.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 17 Curtis discloses a method comprising:
causing, by one or more processors, a device to display a plurality of icon sets that organize icons displayed as dynamically changing videos into a plurality of sub-categories within a category (fig. 9; Para. 37 (processor), Para. 49 (icons displayed on interface 1400)), an icon set among the plurality of icon sets including one or more icons and organizing the one or more icons of the icon set according to a first manner (fig. 10; Para. 50 (selecting movie category expands plurality of subcategories as shown in fig. 10-which is a first manner));
by the one or more processors, based on a first selection of the icon set, causing the device to display the one or more icons of the icon set organized according to a second manner (fig. 11; Para. 50-51 (drama sub-category is selected and fig. 11 displays icons with movies under subcategory drama-which is a second manner)); and by the one or more processors, based on a second selection of an icon among the one or more icons organized according to the second manner, initiating an operation that corresponds to the icon among multiple operations available for initiation (fig.12; Para. 52 magnifications of the icon selected occurs when the cursor is used to highlight an icon in the icons under drama-which is an available operation(zooming))).
Curtis does not explicitly disclose icons as dynamically changing video.
Vaysman discloses a Dynamic Mosaic Extended Electronic Program Guide DMXEPG (fig. 1) wherein the Mosaic Elements (MEs) can be dynamically added removed altered by triggers based on time of day or week or month or special events or some criteria (Para. 18, 142). Which meets “icons as dynamically changing video”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Curtis to include dynamically changing video icons as disclosed by Vaysman in order to support dynamic customization of the icons based on events of interest to a user.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 18 Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses the method, wherein: the multiple operations include at least one of: causing the icon to be visually distinguished from other icons of the icon set (Curtis: fig.12; Para. 52 (zoom is a distinguishing function)); causing display of information that corresponds to a content item that corresponds to the icon (Curtis: Para. 52 (information becomes more legible)); or causing display of the content item that corresponds to the icon (Vaysman: Para. 142).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 19 Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses the method, wherein: the initiated operation that corresponds to the icon includes at least one of:
causing the icon to be visually distinguished from other icons of the icon set (Curtis: Para. 52); causing display of information that corresponds to a content item that corresponds to the icon (Curtis fig. 12-13 ; Para. 52); or causing display of the content item that corresponds to the icon (Vaysman: Para. 142).
Regarding claims 5, 12 Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses the method, wherein: the icon set is a first icon set that corresponds to a first sub-category among the plurality of sub-categories within the category (Curtis: Drama; fig. 11; Para. 50); and the method further comprises, based on activation of a selectable element of the device, causing the device to display at least one icon of a second icon set that corresponds to a second sub-category among the plurality of sub-categories within the category (Curtis: fig. 10; Para. 49-50 (any other subcategory will yield result as shown in fig. 11-that will meet the second sub-category)).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 19 Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses the method, wherein: the selectable element of the device corresponds to a navigation operation (Curtis: Para. 47 (navigates)); and the causing of the device to display the at least one icon of the second icon set is in response to the activation of the selectable element that corresponds to the navigation operation (Curtis: Para. 47, 49-51).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20 Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses the method, further comprising: based on activation of a selectable element of the device, causing the device to revert to displaying the plurality of icon sets that organize the icons into the plurality of sub-categories within the category (Curtis: Para. 39 discloses a select and back buttons the back button reverts to the or cancels the current selected operation-user can go back to fig. 10 from fig. 11-see also para. 47 for navigating hierarchical structure of the guide)).
Regarding claim 16, Curtis in view of Vaysman discloses all in claim 2 and 9 and in addition Curtis discloses a device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor among the one or more processors, cause the device to perform device operations comprising (Par. 37).
Claims 8, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis, USPG_Pub. 20070192794, in view of Vaysman, USPG_Pub. 20070011702, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 8, 15, 21 Curtis in view of Vaysman do not explicitly disclose the method, wherein: the first manner according to which the one or more icons of the icon set are organized causes the one or more icons of the icon set to be organized in chronological order; and the second manner according to which the one or more icons of the icon set are organized causes the one or more icons of the icon set to be organized by geographic location.
Examiner takes official notice that arranging icons chronologically or geographically or otherwise was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of Ordinary skill would have employed using chronological order or geographical location arrangement of the icons-based user’s perceived interest thereby allowing for guide customization among subscriber network increasing user convenience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST..
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2422