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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application is recognized as a continuation of Application No. 17/940,854 filed 9/08/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 4/06/2026, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 12/05/2025. Applicant’s arguments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 3-4 are currently cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (US PGPUB No. 2018/0276306; Pub. Date: Sep. 27, 2018) in view of GOTTLIEB (International Publication Number: WO 2020/0160614 A1; Pub. Date: 2020-08-13) and Dintenfass et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0090040; Pub. Date: Mar. 25, 2021).
Regarding independent claim 1,
David discloses a method for generating a social-networking system, the method comprising: generating a second portal webpage from a first portal webpage, where the second portal webpage and the first portal webpage each comprising a graphical user interface (GUI) having a plurality of graphical objects, each graphical object being associated with a respective available website having a unique uniform resource locator (URL) and a first unique programmed key; See Paragraphs [0018]-[0019], (Disclosing a system for scanning a unique code allowing users to create and view a web page with a unique code as part of the URL. The process of generating a new web page 18 includes an initialization process wherein a user may obtain a unique QR code 10 from a centralized database via an application. A user may then scan code 10 via a smart phone using a camera connected to computing device 14. QR code 12 first presents a template 16 on a user computing device 14. Template 16 comprises one or more data fields and design parameters for webpage 18 content and populates the site with encoded data 12 associated with the QR code, i.e. generating a second portal webpage (e.g. the landing page displayed following the user scanning the QR code) from a first portal webpage (e.g. the application providing the QR code for display) , where the second portal webpage (e.g. the web page displaying the template) and the first portal webpage (e.g. Note [0026] wherein the application may be loaded on a smartphone and presented as a user interface) each comprising a graphical user interface (GUI) having a plurality of graphical objects (e.g. template 16 comprises graphical elements as in FIG. 2, the application page comprises at least a display of the QR code).)
David does not disclose the step of generating a plurality of tags each comprising a quick-response (QR) code for the URL and a personalization area and wherein the first unique programmed key is within the personalization area;
wherein the first unique programmed key is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first portal webpage,
GOTTLIEB discloses the step of generating a plurality of tags each comprising a quick-response (QR) code for the URL and a personalization area and wherein the first unique programmed key is within the personalization area; See FIG. 13 & Paragraph, (Disclosing a system for scanning a tag such as a QR code to retrieve a web link. FIG. 13 illustrates a graphical user interface comprising a list of QR codes 1301 that an administrator may access and interact with each individual QR code in the list, i.e. generating a plurality of tags each comprising a quick-response (QR) code for the URL and a personalization area and wherein the first unique programmed key is within the personalization area;)
The examiner notes that Pg. 2, lines 16-21 of Applicant's Specification defines the "unique programmed key" as being "associated with one of the plurality of available websites". The method of GOTTLIEB generates a list of QR codes that, when interacted with, cause the system to send a web-request for a weblink to server 600, which returns the information associated with that weblink. Paragraph [0021] of GOTTLIEB describes a weblink as comprising a URL comprising a hostname and filename. Therefore, the interface of FIG. 13 illustrates a list of elements associated with individual URLs that an administrator may interact with, i.e. wherein the first unique programmed key is within the personalization area (e.g. any of the QR codes present in interface 1300 function as the "unique programmed key" described in the claim and Applicant's Specification).)
wherein the first unique programmed key is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first portal webpage, See Paragraph [0090], (Administrators may interact with individual QR codes of the plurality of QR codes to cause the system to submit a web-request to server 600, i.e. wherein the first unique programmed key is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first portal webpage (e.g. the web-request is submitted, i.e. entered, via the selecting of a QR code to retrieve information associated with a URL such as by displaying webpage on a browser).)
David and GOTTLIEB are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David to include the method of presenting a listing of QR codes allowing users to access a variety of URLs as disclosed by GOTTLIEB. Paragraph [0051] of GOTTLIEB discloses that the system allows individual QR codes to become a hub of live information that may be shared with any user that scans the QR code. This process allows for more efficient access to information that may be otherwise buried within a large corporate tree.
David-GOTTLIEB does not disclose the step wherein the second portal webpage is generated and made available at the second URL,
and when the at least first unique programmed key is entered into the programmable keyed portal of both the first and second portal webpages the other portal webpage is returned to the user.
Dintenfass discloses the step wherein the second portal webpage is generated and made available at the second URL, See Paragraph [0063], (Disclosing a method for presenting an online banking portal having adjustable display settings for credit card transactions. A user may access a first portal to facilitate the creation and access to a third portal via a authentication information. Note [0031] wherein the third portal may be a new banking portal accessible to the first user.) See Paragraph [0021], (Accessing a portal presents user information associated with credit card purchases. Note [0057]-[0058] wherein the system may be provided do users via computing devices 101 using web browsers for displaying and manipulating data on web pages, i.e. and when the at least first unique programmed key is entered into the programmable keyed portal of both the first and second portal webpages the other portal webpage is returned to the user (e.g. a user may access a first portal to create a third portal to access banking information).)
and when the at least first unique programmed key is entered into the programmable keyed portal of both the first and second portal webpages the other portal webpage is returned to the user. See Paragraph [0063], (A user may access a first portal to facilitate the creation and access to a third portal via a authentication information. Note [0031] wherein the third portal may be a new banking portal accessible to the first user.) See Paragraph [0021], (Accessing a portal presents user information associated with credit card purchases. Note [0057]-[0058] wherein the system may be provided do users via computing devices 101 using web browsers for displaying and manipulating data on web pages, i.e. and when the at least first unique programmed key is entered into the programmable keyed portal of both the first and second portal webpages the other portal webpage is returned to the user (e.g. a user may access a first portal to create a third portal to access banking information).)
David, GOTTLIEB and Dintenfass are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-GOTTLIEB to include the method of generating a plurality of portals for displaying content as disclosed by Dintenfass. Paragraph [0067] of Dintenfass discloses that the system allows users to customize a plurality of user portals as well as generating additional portals based on authorization privileges that provide different information based on user needs. The examiner notes that while Dintenfass is directed to providing portals for banking information, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that user portals such as those of Dintenfass may be directed to any number of subjects and may present information relating to fields outside of banking
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of GOTTLIEB and Ditenfass as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauser et al. (US PGPUB NO. 2021/0217106; Pub. Date: Jul. 15, 2021).
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass discloses all of the limitations.
David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass does not disclose the step of presenting a settings webpage to the user, wherein the settings webpage comprises a plurality of configurable inputs enabling the user to define access permissions for the selected website, and to customize features of the selected website.
Hauser discloses the step of presenting a settings webpage to the user, wherein the settings webpage comprises a plurality of configurable inputs enabling the user to define access permissions for the selected website, and to customize features of the selected website. See Paragraph [0076], (Disclosing a communications platform configured to generate a plurality of logical structures. Users may create and manage logical structures representing "homes" within which content can be shared.) See FIG. 19 & Paragraphs [0344]-[0346], (FIG. 19 illustrates GUI for modifying a logical sub-structure which may include an option 1902b for modifying user permissions for the logical sub-structure. A user may specify a set of permissions for various titles. An example is provided wherein corporate roles may be assigned permissions via options of a graphical user interface, such as specifying whether uses having an "Admin Team" role can send messages, pin or unpin messages, etc., i.e. presenting a settings webpage to the user, wherein the settings webpage comprises a plurality of configurable inputs enabling the user to define access permissions (e.g. via options provided according to 1902b) for the selected website, and to customize features of the selected website (e.g. option 1902a for editing information).)
David, GOTTLIEB, Dintenfass and Hauser are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass to include the method of creating and aggregating content from logical structures as disclosed by Hauser. Paragraph [0177] of Hauser discloses that that platform 150 allows users to create custom logical structures that allow users to more easily specify the types of content that can be shared within logical structures of a particular type, the manner in which the content is shared, etc. providing more granular control over content, which represents an improvement in the user experience.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of GOTTLIEB and Dintenfass as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DOMM et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0342616; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 1, David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass discloses all of the limitations.
David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass does not disclose the step of receiving an "abort" input from the user;
and in response to receiving the "abort" input, immediately halting an action, a behavior, or a performance associated with the selected website.
DOMM discloses the step of receiving an "abort" input from the user; See FIG. 6A, 6X & Paragraph [0215], (Disclosing a method for presenting information about and facilitating consumption of content in a content delivery application. FIG. 6A illustrates a graphical user interface for content playback including a platter 698-36 which may include one or more playback control elements to control playback of content such as songs, podcasts, etc. Playback control elements may include a pause icon, a fast-forward icon as illustrated in FIG. 6X, i.e. receiving an "abort" input from the user (e.g. a user may interact with a playback control element to perform the corresponding action including pausing playback).)
and in response to receiving the "abort" input, immediately halting an action, a behavior, or a performance associated with the selected website. See FIG. 6A, 6X & Paragraph [0215], (FIG. 6A illustrates a graphical user interface for content playback including a platter 698-36 which may include one or more playback control elements to control playback of content such as songs, podcasts, etc. Playback control elements may include a pause icon, a fast-forward icon as illustrated in FIG. 6X, i.e. an "abort" input object configured to halt an action, a behavior, or a performance of one or more of the at least two target digital platforms (e.g. the pause button stops playback of media content, i.e. halting an action).)
David, GOTTLIEB, Dintenfass and DOMM are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-GOTTLIEB-Dintenfass to include the method of providing content to a user based on user preferences and connections with other users as disclosed by DOMM. Paragraph [0252] of DOMM discloses that the process of displaying playlists from friends allows a user's electronic device to efficiently provide content from a user's friends, which enhances operability of the user device and makes the user-device interface more efficient by allowing users to add content to their content library with fewer inputs which results in a reduction in power usage and improves battery life of the device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (US PGPUB No. 2018/0276306; Pub. Date: Sep. 27, 2018) in view of Ronnang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0311119; Pub. Date: Oct. 1, 2020).
Regarding independent claim 6,
David discloses a decentralized social-networking system comprising: at least two target digital platforms, each comprising a unique URL and a personalization area containing personalization data; See Paragraph [0019], (Disclosing a system for scanning a unique code allowing users to create and view a web page with a unique code as part of the URL. The process of generating a new web page 18 includes an initialization process wherein QR code 12 first presents a template 16 on a user computing device 14. Template 16 comprises one or more data fields and design parameters for webpage 18 content and populates the site with encoded data 12 associated with the QR code.) See Paragraph [0025], (Web page 18 may be accessed by a second user scanning QR tag 10 which presents the user with web page 18 containing the information entered by an owner via template 16 described in [0019], i.e. a decentralized social-networking system comprising: at least two target digital platforms (e.g. template 16 and webpage 18 are distinct), each comprising a unique URL (e.g. Note [0026] wherein the system may be accessed via a web browser. Therefore, template 16 and webpage 18 are distinct web pages presented on a browser and would therefore have unique URLs) and a personalization area containing personalization data (e.g. template 16 comprises data fields and design parameters, webpage 18 includes user-specified content entered by a user into template 16).)
one or more tags, each comprising a quick-response (QR) code associated with the at least two target digital platforms; See Paragraphs [0024]-[0025], (The system allows consumers to tag items and associate relevant data for others to read using a smart phone or other computing device. A tool may have an attached QR tag 10 that an author user may use to create a web page 18 via a template 16 described in [0019], i.e. one or more tags, each comprising a quick-response (QR) code associated with the at least two target digital platforms (e.g. the QR tag 10 is associated with the template 16 that allows a user to create a webpage as well as web page 18 which may be viewed by other users by scanning the QR code of QR tag 10).)
a programmable keyed portal comprising a plurality of input objects configured to direct a user to one of the at least two digital platforms based on the personalization data; See Paragraph [0019], (Generating a new web page 18 involves presenting a template 16 on a user computing device 14 for a user wanting to create a web page 18 for use by other users. Template 16 comprises one or more data fields and design parameters for webpage 18 content and populates the site with encoded data 12 associated with the QR code.) See Paragraph [0025], (An example is provided wherein a web page 18 may be created by a tool owner by scanning QR tag 10 where the owner could then enter user-specified content or other information. The user-specified content 16 is transmitted to the server where it is incorporated into a website. A second user may then scan the tag 10 with a mobile device 14 which then displays web page 18 containing the user-specified content provided by the tool owner, i.e. a programmable keyed portal comprising a plurality of input objects configured to direct a user to one of the at least two digital platforms based on the personalization data (e.g. template 16 of [0019] comprises a plurality of data fields that allow a user such as a tool owner to configure a web page 18. A second user may be directed to web page 18 via the QR tag 10);)
wherein the first personalization data is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first digital platform to create the second digital platform; See Paragraph [0019], (Generating a new web page 18 involves presenting a template 16 on a user computing device 14 for a user wanting to create a web page 18 for use by other users. Template 16 comprises one or more data fields and design parameters for webpage 18 content and populates the site with encoded data 12 associated with the QR code.) See Paragraph [0025], (An example is provided wherein a web page 18 may be created by a tool owner by scanning QR tag 10 where the owner could then enter user-specified content or other information. The user-specified content 16 is transmitted to the server where it is incorporated into a website, i.e. wherein the first personalization data (e.g. the user-specified content) is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first digital platform (e.g. the system of David provides an interface for creating web pages) to create the second digital platform (e.g. the created web page) ;)
David does not disclose an aggregator configured to aggregate content from at least one of the at least two target digital platforms and plays them in an order that is dictated by a relational scheduling algorithm that learns what content each user prefers and provides each user with the most preferable content on the basis of the user's preferences.
Ronnang discloses an aggregator configured to aggregate content from at least one of the at least two target digital platforms and plays them in an order that is dictated by a relational scheduling algorithm that learns what content each user prefers and provides each user with the most preferable content on the basis of the user's preferences. See Paragraph [0018], (Disclosing a system for facilitating dynamic playlist priority in a vehicle based upon user preferences and context. The system generates a dynamic playlist based upon user preferences and context. A content playback component 114 plays the subsets of classified content as a playlist in and order based on a relevancy ranking determined by ranking component 112.) See Paragraph [0020], (Compilation component 108 may receive content such as audio files or content convertible into audio files from one or more broadcast, streaming or stored content sources, such as local radio, satellite radio, streaming radio, music stored on an external user device, podcasts, audiobooks, voice messages, instant messages or email. Metadata such as an abstract, a title or subtitle, keywords or hashtags taken directly from the content source, or user comments or ratings from a source such as a social media platform may also be retrieved by the compilation component 108, i.e. discloses an aggregator configured to aggregate content from at least one of the at least two target digital platforms (e.g. compilation component 108 ingests information from a plurality of sources including social media content ) and plays them in an order that is dictated by a relational scheduling algorithm (e.g. ranking component 112 orders the dynamic playlist) that learns what content each user prefers and provides each user with the most preferable content on the basis of the user's preferences (e.g. the dynamic playlist is generated based on user preference data).)
David and Ronnang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David to include the compilation component 108 of Ronnang for use in creating dynamic playlists of content. Paragraph [0036] of Ronnang discloses that the system may employ machine learning techniques to analyzes user behavior to modify and improve the relevance of playlists generated by ranking component 112 and prioritization component 116.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Ronnang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of DOMM et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0342616; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 13,
As discussed above with claim 6, David-Ronnang discloses all of the limitations.
David-Ronnang does not disclose an "abort" input object configured to halt an action, a behavior, or a performance of one or more of the at least two target digital platforms.
DOMM further discloses an "abort" input object configured to halt an action, a behavior, or a performance of one or more of the at least two target digital platforms. See FIG. 6A, 6X & Paragraph [0215], (Disclosing a method for presenting information about and facilitating consumption of content in a content delivery application. FIG. 6A illustrates a graphical user interface for content playback including a platter 698-36 which may include one or more playback control elements to control playback of content such as songs, podcasts, etc. Playback control elements may include a pause icon, a fast-forward icon as illustrated in FIG. 6X, i.e. an "abort" input object configured to halt an action, a behavior, or a performance of one or more of the at least two target digital platforms (e.g. the pause button stops playback of media content, i.e. halting an action).)
David, Ronnang and DOMM are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-Ronnang to include the method of providing content to a user based on user preferences and connections with other users as disclosed by DOMM. Paragraph [0252] of DOMM discloses that the process of displaying playlists from friends allows a user's electronic device to efficiently provide content from a user's friends, which enhances operability of the user device and makes the user-device interface more efficient by allowing users to add content to their content library with fewer inputs which results in a reduction in power usage and improves battery life of the device.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Ronnang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of SHARMA (International Publication Number: WO 2019/0147373 A1; Pub. Date: Aug, 1, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 6, David-Ronnang discloses all of the limitations.
David-Ronnang does not disclose the step wherein each of the one or more tags comprises a first layer comprising a removable film, a second layer, and a third layer.
SHARMA discloses the step wherein each of the one or more tags comprises a first layer comprising a removable film, a second layer, and a third layer. See Pg. 3, Paragraph 3, (Disclosing a system for providing authorized access to digital assets by associating an authentication tag with a physical object accessible to a user. The system may be associated with a key 205 that may be affixed to an object 12 to be authenticated associated with datasets 14, 16 which may comprise a tag 10 configured as an adhesive layer, i.e. wherein each of the one or more tags comprises a first layer comprising a removable film (e.g. the adhesive layer), a second layer (e.g. key 205), and a third layer (e.g. object 12).)
David, Ronnang and SHARMA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-Ronnang to include the method of allowing users to access a dataset according to a tag object they may physically carry as disclosed by SHARMA. Pg. 7, Paragraph 2 of SHARMA discloses that the authentication pattern signature for a key 205 is stored in a remote database that may be accessed when key 205 is read. Second dataset 16 serves as an address identifier that enables the database to be interrogated only at that address rather than having to interrogate every authentication pattern signature in the remote database. This process is described as greatly accelerating authentication and improves field performance.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
As discussed above with claim 6, David-Ronanng discloses all of the limitations.
David-Ronanng does not disclose the step wherein the programmable keyed portal is configured to display an authentication prompt configured to accept an authentication input from the user.
SHARMA discloses the step wherein the programmable keyed portal is configured to display an authentication prompt configured to accept an authentication input from the user. See FIG. 4 & Pg. 10, Paragraph 1, (Disclosing a system for providing authorized access to digital assets by associating an authentication tag with a physical object accessible to a user. FIG. 4 illustrates method 400 comprising step 410 wherein a user requests to login to a website through an ID provider. At step 425, the app directs a user to scan their unique identification and authentication key 205, i.e. wherein the programmable keyed portal is configured to display an authentication prompt configured to accept an authentication input from the user (e.g. the app is rendered on a mobile device).)
David, Ronanng and SHARMA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David-Ronanng to include the method of allowing users to access a dataset according to a tag object they may physically carry as disclosed by SHARMA. Pg. 7, Paragraph 2 of SHARMA discloses that the authentication pattern signature for a key 205 is stored in a remote database that may be accessed when key 205 is read. Second dataset 16 serves as an address identifier that enables the database to be interrogated only at that address rather than having to interrogate every authentication pattern signature in the remote database. This process is described as greatly accelerating authentication and improves field performance.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Ronnang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of HANSON (Canadian Patent No. CA 2839150 C, Pub. Date: February, 13, 2018).
Regarding dependent claim 8,
As discussed above with claim 6, David-Ronanng discloses all of the limitations.
David-Ronanng does not disclose the step wherein the plurality of input objects comprises nine selectable buttons each associated with a numeric value ranging from 0 to 9, and wherein the nine selectable buttons are associated with the personalization data.
HANSON discloses the step wherein the plurality of input objects comprises nine selectable buttons each associated with a numeric value ranging from 0 to 9, and wherein the nine selectable buttons are associated with the personalization data. See FIG. 8 & Paragraph [0079], (Disclosing a system for processing electronic payments via communication with a user's mobile computing device. FIG. 8 illustrates a graphical user interface 800 for enabling payment selection and authorization as part of a payment applicaiton2 22 running on user device 110. Interface800 includes a rendering of a pin pad indicating numbers 0-9, i.e. wherein the plurality of input objects comprises nine selectable buttons each associated with a numeric value ranging from 0 to 9, and wherein the nine selectable buttons are associated with the personalization data.)
David, Ronanng and HANSON are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David- Ronanng to include the method of displaying a payment application to a user as disclosed by HANSON. Paragraph [0024] of HANSON discloses that the use of the electronic payment system including the user device represents an improvement in security against misuse of a user's electronic payment type.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
As discussed above with claim 8, David-Ronanng-HANSON discloses all of the limitations.
Ronnang further discloses the step wherein the plurality of input objects further comprises an "aggregator" input configured to retrieve and display the aggregator, and wherein the aggregator comprises a plurality of interactive virtual objects for the user.
See FIG. 7 & Paragraph [0046], (FIG. 7 illustrates visualization component 302 that displays, summarizes and organizes a playlist on a display device such as a dashboard of a vehicle. A user may select elements of a list in order to initiate playback of the desired content, i.e. wherein the plurality of input objects further comprises an "aggregator" input configured to retrieve and display the aggregator, and wherein the aggregator comprises a plurality of interactive virtual objects for the user.)
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Ronnang and HANSON as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DOMM et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0342616; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 9,
As discussed above with claim 8, David- Ronanng-HANSON discloses all of the limitations.
David- Ronanng-HANSON does not disclose the step wherein the plurality of input objects further comprises: a "stop-start" input configured to cause the aggregator to start or stop playing music;
a "reset" input configured to cause the aggregator to reset the music and to reset the programmable keyed portal to accept a new input;
DOMM discloses the step wherein the plurality of input objects further comprises: a "stop-start" input configured to cause the aggregator to start or stop playing music; See FIG. 6A, 6X & Paragraph [0215], (Disclosing a method for presenting information about and facilitating consumption of content in a content delivery application. FIG. 6A illustrates a graphical user interface for content playback including a platter 698-36 which may include one or more playback control elements to control playback of content such as songs, podcasts, etc. Playback control elements may include a pause icon, a fast-forward icon as illustrated in FIG. 6X, i.e. herein the plurality of input objects further comprises: a "stop-start" input configured to cause the aggregator to start or stop playing music (e.g. one ordinary skill in the art would recognize that playback control elements include controls for starting, stopping or otherwise manipulating playback of a media item.)
a "reset" input configured to cause the aggregator to reset the music and to reset the programmable keyed portal to accept a new input; See Paragraph 0189], (FIG. 6A illustrates a "Continue Playing Section" 6060 wherein a user may interact with individual songs, albums, podcasts to continue playback of a previously played media item, i.e. a "reset" input configured to cause the aggregator to reset the music and to reset the programmable keyed portal to accept a new input (e.g. the user selection of a different media file redirects playback to the newly selected item, which allows users to further interact with the new content item such as via the playback control elements).)
and a "directory" input configured to present a directory of at least two pre-associated inputs, each associated with a respective one of the at least two target digital platforms. See Paragraph 0189], (FIG. 6A illustrates a "Continue Playing Section" 6060 wherein a user may interact with individual songs, albums, podcasts to continue playback of a previously played media item. A "Friends are Listening to" 610 section is also located below section 606 each having a plurality of elements arranged horizontally, i.e. a "directory" input configured to present a directory of at least two pre-associated inputs, each associated with a respective one of the at least two target digital platforms (e.g. a user may interact with the various sections of the interface having listings of media items).)
David, Ronanng, HANSON and DOMM are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of David- Ronanng-HANSON to include the method of providing content to a user based on user preferences and connections with other users as disclosed by DOMM. Paragraph [0252] of DOMM discloses that the process of displaying playlists from friends allows a user's electronic device to efficiently provide content from a user's friends, which enhances operability of the user device and makes the user-device interface more efficient by allowing users to add content to their content library with fewer inputs which results in a reduction in power usage and improves battery life of the device.
Regarding dependent claim 10,
As discussed above with claim 9, David-Ronnang-HANSON-DOMM discloses all of the limitations.
David further discloses the step wherein the user belongs to two or more users of the one or more tags, See Paragraph [0025], (An example is provided wherein a web page 18 may be created by a tool owner by scanning QR tag 10 where the owner could then enter user-specified content or other information. The user-specified content 16 is transmitted to the server where it is incorporated into a website. A second user may then scan the tag 10 with a mobile device 14 which then displays web page 18 containing the user-specified content provided by the tool owner, i.e. wherein the user belongs to two or more users of the one or more tags (e.g. at least two users are involved in the use of QR tag 10).)
Additionally, DOMM further discloses the step wherein the "directory" input provides a communicative linkage between the two or more users. See Paragraph [0189], (FIG. 6A illustrates a "Continue Playing Section" 6060 wherein a user may interact with individual songs, albums, podcasts to continue playback of a previously played media item. A "Friends are Listening to" 610 section is also located below section 606 each having a plurality of elements arranged horizontally, i.e. wherein the "directory" input provides a communicative linkage between the two or more users. (e.g. the Friends Are Listening To" functionality represents a connection between two users linked as "friends" within the content delivery application.)
Examiner’s Input
The following represents the examiner’s input relating to potential claim amendments and/or clarifications that would likely overcome the currently cited prior art and/or overcome a particular rejection:
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 recites the following limitation:
wherein the first unique programmed key is entered into the first programmable keyed portal of the first portal webpage,
Pg. 3, lines 11-18 of Applicant’s Specification describes the process of “entry” associated with the unique programmed key as comprising “an area for a programmed key, optionally to be hand written, and an area for an autograph, optionally to be hand written”.
As currently presented, the claim merely requires an input to be entered that identifies a webpage to be provided. The examiner suggests incorporating the limitations identified above which would distinguish the claimed invention over the currently cited prior art discussed in the rejection(s) above.
Specifically, the examiner recommends amending at least independent claim 1 to include limitations relating to the interface comprising an area for a user to provide a unique programmed key in the form of text such that the user text input is provided to the first portal webpage, wherein the text represents the programmed key and facilitates access to the desired webpage(s).
Any amendments would require further search and/or consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments modify the scope of the claimed invention and therefore necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 is acknowledged. The corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
Argument’s replacement Drawings filed 4/06/2026 remedy the issues objected to in the previous Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/05/2025. The corresponding objection has been withdrawn.
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 Fernando M Mari whose t elephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights