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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 20, 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kingston (US 2022/0385992).
Regarding claim 1, 9, 10, Kingston discloses A method of information recommendation, comprising: playing a first video on an information recommendation page (fig. 3);
displaying respective information tags associated with a first entity in the first video, the respective information tags being generated according to at least one information recommendation dimension corresponding to an entity type of the first entity, wherein different entity types correspond to different information recommendation dimensions (fig. 2, 3, 6, [0029, 0031, 0047, 0062] The system matches a product in a video with merchants that sell the product/type of product. The system also presents items for sale that are similar (type) to the product shown in the video. Merchants are shown based on product type as shown in fig. 6. The “first entity” is represented by the product shown in the video, and the information recommendation dimension is represented by merchants and/or similar products that are shown to the user); and
in response to triggering the information tag, displaying a dimension information display page or a floating-layer card relative to the information recommendation page, and displaying corresponding first recommendation information ([0029, 0033, 0034, 0040] information display page is the merchant’s website and the information on the merchant’s website represents the “recommendation information”) in the at least one information recommendation dimension corresponding to the information tag in the dimension information display page or the floating-layer card ([0029, 0031, 0040, 0058]).
Regarding claim 2,16, Kingston discloses wherein the displaying respective information tags associated with a first entity in the first video comprises:
in response to a plurality of candidate entities being present in the first video, determining the first entity from the plurality of candidate entities according to historical behavior data acquired with user authorization, and displaying the respective information tags associated with the first entity; or, in response to a plurality of candidate entities being present in the first video, using each of the plurality of candidate entities as the first entity, and respectively displaying entity information of each first entity and respective information tags associated with each first entity ([0031, 0036], fig. 3, 4 Tags corresponding to a first product are overlaid in the video along with more information about the product).
Regarding claim 3, 11,17, Kingston discloses wherein the displaying respective information tags associated with a first entity in the first video comprises: in response to a plurality of information recommendation dimensions corresponding to the entity type of the first entity being present, switching and displaying, according to playback progress information of the first video, a plurality of information tags associated with the first entity ([0037, 0045], fig. 3, 4 Tags are overlaid and shown as their respective products are displayed on the screen). Regarding claim 4, 12,18, Kingston discloses wherein the displaying respective information tags associated with a first entity in the first video comprises: in response to a plurality of first entities being present in the first video, displaying the information tag associated with the first entity according to time when the first entity appears in the first video ([0037, 0045], figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5,13, 14, 15, 19, Kingston discloses wherein, in response to triggering the information tag, displaying the dimension information display page or the floating-layer card relative to the information recommendation, and displaying the corresponding first recommendation information in the at least one information recommendation dimension corresponding to the information tag in the dimension information display page or the floating-layer card, comprises:
when a plurality of first entities corresponding to a first entity type are present in the first video, in response to triggering any information tag of the information tags corresponding to the first entity type, displaying a recommendation information set in the information recommendation dimension corresponding to the any information tag in the dimension information display page ([0029, 0033, 0034, 0040] information display page is the merchant’s website and the information on the merchant’s website represents the “recommendation information”) or the floating-layer card, wherein the recommendation information set comprises the first recommendation information of the plurality of first entities (fig. 6, [0031, 0047, 0062] Merchants that sell products similar to the tagged item along with products that are similar to the tagged item are shown to the user).
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s argument that the references do not teach the amended claims, particularly “displaying a dimension information display page or a floating-layer card relative to the information recommendation page and displaying corresponding first recommendation information in the at least one recommendation dimension corresponding to the information tag in the dimension information display page or the floating-layer card”, examiner respectfully disagrees. The Kingston reference discloses that upon selecting a particular product tag, the user is shown multiple products that are similar/same category as the tagged product. The user can select any of the products for purchase and/or be directed to the merchant’s website ([0029, 0033, 0040]). The merchant’s website represents “the information display page” and the information contained on the merchant’s website represents the “recommendation information”, as information on any merchant’s website is marketed to a potential user/shopper and can be construed as “recommendation information”.
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 MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights