DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: a method implemented by a computing device for improving effectiveness of content presentation, comprising: displaying an indicator of a target event at a location proximate to a target tag on a target page; determining whether a trigger instruction associated with the target tag or the indicator of the target event is received within a predetermined duration; displaying an interface associated with the target event on a page corresponding to the target tag in response to determining that the trigger instruction is received within the predetermined duration; and displaying prompt information corresponding to the target event on the page corresponding to the target tag in response to determining that the trigger instruction is not received within the predetermined duration.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to guide participation in the transaction activities (Specification ¶0003). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a computing device.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-9 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-9 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-9 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 10-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-9, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon et al., US PG Pub 2018/0032997 A1 (hereafter "Gordon").
Regarding claim 1, Gordon discloses a method implemented by a computing device for improving effectiveness of content presentation, comprising:
displaying an indicator of a target event at a location proximate to a target tag on a target page (¶¶0219, 0238, 0339, 0375-0383, 0493, 0561, and 0604-0606);
determining whether a trigger instruction associated with the target tag or the indicator of the target event is received within a predetermined duration (¶¶0604-0609 and 0653-0655);
displaying an interface associated with the target event on a page corresponding to the target tag in response to determining that the trigger instruction is received within the predetermined duration (¶¶0334, 0355, 0410, 0604-0606 and 0755-0759); and
displaying prompt information corresponding to the target event on the page corresponding to the target tag in response to determining that the trigger instruction is not received within the predetermined duration (¶¶0150-0155, 0268, 1254, 1347-1348, 1750, 1794, and 1963-1964).
Regarding claim 2, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the indicator of the target event in a first display form in response to determining that a display duration of the indicator has not reached a duration threshold; and switching to display the indicator in a second display form in response to determining that the display duration of the indicator has reached the duration threshold, wherein a display area of the second display form is smaller than a display area of the first display form (Figures 11, 19A, and 24-26 and ¶¶0328-0339, 0373, 1198, 1734, and 1771).
Regarding claim 3, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator of the target event has a first display form and a second form, the first display form comprises a pop-up window control in a form of a bubble, and the second display form comprise a mark positioned proximate to a corner of the target tag (¶¶0486, 0509, and 0519).
Regarding claim 4, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator of the target event is displayed at the location proximate to the target tag in response to determining that a condition has been met, and the condition comprises: a current time being within a display time range corresponding to the indicator of the target event, a display frequency of the indicator of the target event being less than a predetermined frequency, account information matching the target event, and the target event having a highest priority among at least one event associated with the target tag (¶¶0429-0437, 0453, 0469, 0491, 0506-0508, 0783, 1059, 1736, and 1825).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger instruction associated with the target tag or the indicator of the target event comprises: a tap gesture performed on the target tag; a swipe gesture indicative of switching from a current tag to the target tag; and a tap gesture performed on the indicator of the target event (¶¶0257-262, 0288-0289, 0418-0419, 0510, 0544, 0583-0586, 1397, 1402-1405, 1426, and 1434-1435).
Regarding claim 6, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying an interface associated with the target event on a page corresponding to the target tag comprises: displaying the interface associated with the target event in a form of a pop-up window on the page corresponding to the target tag (¶¶1339, 1354, 1554-1559, and 1570-1571).
Regarding claim 7, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying prompt information corresponding to the target event on the page corresponding to the target tag comprises: displaying the prompt information corresponding to the target event in a form of a card in a predetermined card display area of the page corresponding to the target tag (¶¶0155, 0219, 0262, 0377, 0456, and 0632).
Regarding claim 8, Gordon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying prompt information corresponding to the target event on the page corresponding to the target tag comprises: displaying the prompt information corresponding to the target event at a position proximate to a target control on the page corresponding to the target tag (¶¶0376-0379, 0466-0469, 0803, 0911, and 1113-1116).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: in response to detecting an operation performed on the prompt information, displaying a page associated with the target control and displaying the interface associated with the target event on the page associated with the target control (Figures 48-49 and ¶¶0182, 0264, 0473, 0526, 1760, and 1852).
Regarding claims 10-20, all of the limitations in claims 10-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-9, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,736 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Photowat, US PG Pub 2014/0343990 A1, teaches methods and systems for calendaring, social networking and planning for users including, vendors, consumers and enterprises.
Sun et al., US PG Pub 2020/0167820 A1, teaches a method of denying duplicate reward for dissemination of information and a system thereof for monitoring purchaser relationship.
Non-patent literature Shia, An Shin, Kuei-Feng Chang, and Yu-Huang Huang teaches social marketing of electronic coupons under the perspective of social sharing behavior.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights