DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on January 7, 2026. Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
Claims 1-30 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 7, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: Reference sign “552” [paragraph 110, line 9].
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 13-17, and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,628,016 in view Roberts (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), and further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627).
Claims 1, 7, and 13 of patent ‘016 do not expressly teach that the client device is a mobile device, and that the indication of the user request is a user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use, as the client device in patent ‘016, a mobile device, and allow a user gesture as input to cause playback of the content item to continue in the cross-application content player, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 of patent ‘016 do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to allow the content item in patent ‘016 to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the content item is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, and 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7, 15-16, 19, 8-9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,462 in view of Roberts (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), and further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent ‘462 does not expressly teach that the client device is a mobile device, and that the indication of the user request is a user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use, as the client device in patent ‘462, a mobile device, and allow a user gesture as input to cause playback of the content item to continue in the cross-application content player, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent ‘462 do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to allow the content item in patent ‘462 to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the content item is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content.
8. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 19-24, and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,464 in view of Roberts (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), and further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627).
Claims 1, 19, and 13 of patent ‘464 do not expressly teach that the client device is a mobile device, and that the indication of the user request is a user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use, as the client device in patent ‘464, a mobile device, and allow a user gesture as input to cause playback of the content item to continue in the cross-application content player, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Claims 1, 19, and 13 of patent ‘464 do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to allow the content item in patent ‘464 to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the content item is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content.
9. Claims 1, 10, 19, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15, of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,602 in view of Roberts (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), and further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent ‘602 do not expressly teach that the client device is a mobile device, and that the indication of the user request is a user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use, as the client device in patent ‘602, a mobile device, and allow a user gesture as input to cause playback of the content item to continue in the cross-application content player, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent ‘602 do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to allow the content item in patent ‘602 to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the content item is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,512,884), in view of Roberts et al (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), in view of Mindlin (Pub. No. US 2015/0242086), and further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627).
Claims 1-9 (Method)
Claims 10-18 (Computer Readable Medium)
Claims 19-25 (System)
11-1. Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Gupta teaches the claim comprising: initiating presentation of playback of a content item in a first user interface for a first content player associated with a first… application, wherein the first user interface is presented on a… device, by disclosing a method to switch presentation of media from one application or process to another by using a renderer that renders media for both the one application or process and the other application or process [column 2, lines 54-59]. A first application is opened [column 7, lines 43-48] and a lightweight presentation component is created having a lightweight visual space [column 7, lines 49-60]. A renderer is hooked to the lightweight presentation component [column 8, lines 18-22] and the renderer begins rendering a video for the lightweight presentation component to present in its lightweight visual space [column 8, lines 50-61]. Additionally, rather than having the lightweight presentation initially displaying the video, the video may instead be initially presented in the full-featured presentation application [column 12, lines 54-57].
Gupta teaches receiving, a user input made on the… device during the presentation of the playback of the content item in the first user interface on the… device, the user input indicating a request pertaining to a second mobile application, by disclosing that while the video is presented in the first application, a user provides input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17]. Additionally, if the full-featured presentation application is displaying the video, the user may switch to a lightweight presentation component [column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4].
Gupta teaches identifying a play state of the content item at a time corresponding to the user input made on the… device; providing, by a processing device associated with the first content player, the play state of the content item to continue the presentation of the playback of the content item in a second user interface for the first content player associated with the second… application, wherein the first user interface of the first… application and the second user interface of the second… application are presented on one or more… devices, and wherein the first content player provides the play state of the content item so that the playback of the content item is capable of being presented in the second user interface of the second… application in a continuous manner, by disclosing that when switching from the lightweight presentation component to the full-featured presentation application, the full-featured presentation application unloads a work context from the lightweight presentation component currently presenting the media file [column 11, line 55 to column 12, line 7], loads the work context within itself [column 12, lines 12-14], and presents the video in the full visual space in a continuous manner without interruption [column 9, lines 23-50; column 12, lines 22-37]. When switching from the full-featured presentation application to the lightweight presentation component, the work context from the full-featured presentation application is switched to the lightweight presentation component chosen to continue presenting the media file currently presented in the full-featured presentation application’s visual space [column 13, lines 24-29].
Gupta does not expressly teach that the first and second applications are mobile applications, that the device is a mobile device, and that the user input made on the device is a user gesture made on the mobile device, the user gesture made on the mobile device indicating a request pertaining to the second mobile application, and that the identified play state of the content item is at a time corresponding to the user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as the application and devices of Gupta, mobile application on mobile devices, and allow a user gesture as input to switch the presentation of media, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Gupta-Roberts do not expressly teach receiving an indication of a detected input event initiating access to the content item…, whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application,… the input event corresponding to a user interaction with the first content player controlled by the second mobile application… and causing the content item to be accessible by a second content player in response to receiving the indication of the detected input event. Mindlin discloses a system for monitoring drag and drop events [paragraph 12, lines 1-3]. A portable communication device [paragraph 12, lines 3-5] displays two different windows open at the same time [paragraph 13; figure 1]. A separate application may be launched within each window [paragraph 17, lines 1-7]. Example applications include applications for communicating between users, rich media, audio, video, and/or multimedia editing software, and the like [paragraph 17, lines 8-15]. The split-screen GUI program may enable a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [paragraph 18]. For example, an audio clip presented in a source window may be selected and dragged to a destination window to send the audio clip to a second user via a text messaging application [paragraph 21]. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts to be shared with another user via drag and drop, as taught by Mindlin. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users. As discussed above, a lightweight presentation initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61] and while the video was presented in the lightweight presentation, a user provided input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17], or the full-featured presentation application initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57] and the user switched to a lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4], wherein the video is displayed by the same content player throughout [Gupta, column 2, lines 54-59]. Thus, a video will be displayed on the user interface whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application. Since Mindlin discloses split screen functionality that allows user to have two different windows open on the same device at the same time [Mindlin, paragraph 13] where one of the windows displays media such as video [paragraph 17, lines 8-15], the combination of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin discloses receiving input on the video whose playback started in the first user interface of the first application, and sharing the video in response to the input on the application displaying the video [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the video is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content. As discussed above, the content to be shared represents content whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application [see Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61; column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17; column 12, line 54 to column 13, line 4].
11-2. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein the first content player is a software content player, by disclosing that the renderer keeps rendering the media file even if where and how the media is presented is changed, thereby allowing the switched-to-application to present the media file without interruption [Gupta, column 2, lines 62-65; column 4, lines 12-15; column 5, lines 33-36; column 6, lines 34-38].
11-3. Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein the first content player is a cross-application content player, by disclosing that the renderer keeps rendering the media file even if where and how the media is presented is changed, thereby allowing the switched-to-application to present the media file without interruption [Gupta, column 2, lines 62-65].
11-4. Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein the first mobile application is associated with a first platform, and the second mobile application is associated with a second platform, by disclosing that the first application may be a Web browser [Gupta, column 7, lines 44-48] and the switched-to-application may be a separate full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 5, lines 11-14; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17].
11-5. Regarding claims 5, 14, and 23, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein receiving the indication of the detected input event comprises receiving an indication of a detected gesture to move the first content player within the second user interface, by disclosing enabling a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
11-6. Regarding claims 6, 15, and 24, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein causing the content item to be accessible comprises causing information related to the content item to be pasted in a text box in the second user interface, by disclosing enabling a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where source content may include audio video, and multimedia and the destination application may be an application for communicating between users [Mindlin, paragraphs 17-18]
11-7. Regarding claims 7, 16, and 25, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, wherein the request pertaining to the second mobile application comprises a request to share the content item using the second mobile application, by disclosing enabling a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
11-8. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, further comprising: receiving a first indication to dismiss a notification interface, wherein the second user interface comprises the notification interface; and causing, by the processing device, playback of audio content associated with the content item in response to receiving the first indication, by disclosing that when the video is initially presented in the full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57], the user may switch to a lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4] whereby the full-featured presentation application hides itself [Gupta, column 13, lines 9-12] and the work context from the full-featured presentation application is switched to the lightweight presentation component chosen to continue presenting the media file currently presented in the full-featured presentation application’s visual space [Gupta, column 13, lines 24-29]. Here, the lightweight presentation component may be considered the second user interface comprising a notification interface. When the lightweight presentation component is dismissed by the user [Gupta, column 9, lines 3-9], the renderer switches the rendering to the full-featured presentation application, which then presents the media back in the full visual space without interruption [Gupta, column 9, lines 23-50].
11-9. Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claims 8 and 17 respectively, further comprising: receiving a second indication to present the notification interface; and causing, by the processing device, playback of the audio content and video content associated with the content item in response to receiving the second indication, by disclosing that when the video is presented in the full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57], the user may switch to the lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4] whereby the full-featured presentation application hides itself [Gupta, column 13, lines 9-12] and the work context from the full-featured presentation application is switched to the lightweight presentation component chosen to continue presenting the media file currently presented in the full-featured presentation application’s visual space [Gupta, column 13, lines 24-29].
Claims 26-28 (Method)
11-10. Regarding claim 26, Gupta teaches the claim comprising: receiving a user input made on a… device of a first user during playback of a content item in a content player of a first… application presented on the… device of the first user, the user input made on the… device indicating a request pertaining to a second… application, the request corresponding to a first point in the content item played in the content player of the first… application, by disclosing a method to switch presentation of media from one application or process to another by using a renderer that renders media for both the one application or process and the other application or process [column 2, lines 54-59]. A first application is opened [column 7, lines 43-48] and a lightweight presentation component is created having a lightweight visual space [column 7, lines 49-60]. A renderer is hooked to the lightweight presentation component [column 8, lines 18-22] and the renderer begins rendering a video for the lightweight presentation component to present in its lightweight visual space [column 8, lines 50-61]. While the video is presented in the first application, a user provides input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17]. Additionally, rather than having the lightweight presentation initially displaying the video, the video may instead be initially presented in the full-featured presentation application [column 12, lines 54-57]. If the full-featured presentation application is displaying the video, the user may switch to a lightweight presentation component [column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4].
Gupta teaches identifying a play state of the content item at a time corresponding to the user input made on the… device; causing, by a processing device, the playback of the content item to continue in the content player presented on the… device based on the play state while a user interface of the second… application is displayed on the… device, wherein the content player persists on top of the user interface of the second… application to provide the playback of the content item in a continuous manner from the first point in the content item, by disclosing that when switching from the lightweight presentation component to the full-featured presentation application, the full-featured presentation application unloads a work context from the lightweight presentation component currently presenting the media file [column 11, line 55 to column 12, line 7], loads the work context within itself [column 12, lines 12-14], and presents the video in the full visual space in a continuous manner without interruption [column 9, lines 23-50; column 12, lines 22-37]. When switching from the full-featured presentation application to the lightweight presentation component, the work context from the full-featured presentation application is switched to the lightweight presentation component chosen to continue presenting the media file currently presented in the full-featured presentation application’s visual space [column 13, lines 24-29].
Gupta does not expressly teach that the first and second applications are mobile applications, that the device is a mobile device, and that the user input made on the device of the first user is a user gesture made on the mobile device of the first user… the user gesture made on the mobile device indicating a request pertaining to the second mobile application, and that the identified play state of the content item is at a time corresponding to the user gesture made on the mobile device. Roberts discloses an access device implemented by a mobile device phone, a tablet computer, or a personal-digital assistant device [paragraph 37] that presents a media content instance on a display screen via a presentation facility [paragraphs 19, 44]. A detection facility detects a touch gesture by a user with the media content instance [paragraphs 23, 45]. In response to the touch gesture, the detection facility directs an interactive portal facility 106 to present enhanced content associated with the media content instance by transitioning from a presentation of the media content instance on the display screen to a presentation of an interactive portal on the display screen [paragraphs 25, 46]. The interactive portal may be configured to include both a continued presentation of the media content instance and enhanced content related to the media content instance [paragraph 25, last 4 lines; paragraph 46, last 3 lines]. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as the application and devices of Gupta, mobile application on mobile devices, and allow a user gesture as input to switch the presentation of media, as taught by Roberts. This would make it easier for a user to access data at other locations, as well as provide a convenient way to transition between display presentations for media content.
Gupta-Roberts do not expressly teach detecting an input event initiating sharing of the content item…, whose playback started in the content player of the first mobile application,… the input event following an interaction by the first user with the content player persisting on top of the user interface of the second mobile application and controlled by the second mobile application; and causing the content item to be shared with a second user in response to the input event initiating sharing of the content item. Mindlin discloses a system for monitoring drag and drop events [paragraph 12, lines 1-3]. A portable communication device [paragraph 12, lines 3-5] displays two different windows open at the same time [paragraph 13; figure 1]. A separate application may be launched within each window [paragraph 17, lines 1-7]. Example applications include applications for communicating between users, rich media, audio, video, and/or multimedia editing software, and the like [paragraph 17, lines 8-15]. The split-screen GUI program may enable a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [paragraph 18]. For example, an audio clip presented in a source window may be selected and dragged to a destination window to send the audio clip to a second user via a text messaging application [paragraph 21]. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts to be shared with another user via drag and drop, as taught by Mindlin. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users. As discussed above, a lightweight presentation initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61] and while the video was presented in the lightweight presentation, a user provided input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17], or the full-featured presentation application initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57] and the user switched to a lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4], wherein the video is displayed by the same content player throughout [Gupta, column 2, lines 54-59]. Thus, a video will be displayed on the user interface whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application. Since Mindlin discloses split screen functionality that allows user to have two different windows open on the same device at the same time [Mindlin, paragraph 13] where one of the windows displays media such as video [paragraph 17, lines 8-15], the combination of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin discloses receiving input on the video whose playback started in the first user interface of the first application, and sharing the video in response to the input on the application displaying the video [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item… is being played in the content player on the user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the content player on the user interface of the second mobile application. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts-Midlin to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the video is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content.
11-11. Regarding claim 27, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claim 26, wherein the user interaction by the first user with the content player comprises a gesture to move the content player, by disclosing enabling a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
11-12. Regarding claim 28, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claim 27, wherein the user request pertaining to the second mobile application comprises a request to share the content item using the second mobile application, by disclosing enabling a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
12. Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,512,884), in view of Roberts et al (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), in view of Mindlin (Pub. No. US 2015/0242086), in view of Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627), and further in view of Ekholm et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,285,785).
12-1. Regarding claim 29, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun teach all the limitations of claim 28. Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun do not expressly teach the claim further comprising: causing the sharing of the content item to be canceled in response to a user selection of a user interface element pertaining to a cancellation action. Ekholm discloses a workspace that provides instant messaging and sharing capabilities [column 5, lines 24-29]. A user may initiate sharing of a video during an instant messaging communication session [column 6, line 59 to column 7, line 5]. For video sharing, a soft key allows the user to start and terminate sharing [column 7, lines 31-39]. This would allow the user to fluently control sharing of content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide as the lightweight presentation component of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun, a workspace application that allows the user to initiate and terminate sharing of videos, as taught by Ekholm. This would provide fluent control of sharing content.
12-2. Regarding claim 30, Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin-Sun-Ekholm teach all the limitations of claim 29, wherein the input event comprises a user selection of a user interface element to send the content item to the second user via the second mobile application, wherein the second mobile application comprises a messaging application, by disclosing that the workspace provides instant messaging and sharing capabilities [Ekholm, column 5, lines 24-29].
Response to Arguments
13. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10, 19, and 26.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that each one of the references of Gupta et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,512,884), Roberts et al (Pub. No. US 2012/0291059), Mindlin (Pub. No. US 2015/0242086), and Sun (U.S. Patent No. 9,800,627) individually do not teach or suggest, “receiving an indication of a detected input event initiating access to the content item while the content item, whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application, is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, the input event corresponding to a user interaction with the first content player controlled by the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface," as has been amended to the claim.
Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the combination of Gupta, in view of Roberts, in view of Mindlin, and further in view of Sun are considered to teach the claim limitations.
Gupta discloses a method to switch presentation of media from one application or process to another by using a renderer that renders media for both the one application or process and the other application or process [Gupta, column 2, lines 54-59]. A first application is opened [Gupta, column 7, lines 43-48] and a lightweight presentation component is created having a lightweight visual space [Gupta, column 7, lines 49-60]. A renderer is hooked to the lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 8, lines 18-22] and the renderer begins rendering a video for the lightweight presentation component to present in its lightweight visual space [Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61]. Additionally, rather than having the lightweight presentation initially displaying the video, the video may instead be initially presented in the full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57].
While the video is presented in the first application, a user provides input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17]. Additionally, if the full-featured presentation application is displaying the video, the user may switch to a lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4].
Mindlin discloses a system for monitoring drag and drop events [Mindlin, paragraph 12, lines 1-3]. A portable communication device [Mindlin, paragraph 12, lines 3-5] displays two different windows open at the same time [Mindlin, paragraph 13; figure 1]. A separate application may be launched within each window [Mindlin, paragraph 17, lines 1-7]. Example applications include applications for communicating between users, rich media, audio, video, and/or multimedia editing software, and the like [Mindlin, paragraph 17, lines 8-15]. The split-screen GUI program may enable a drag and drop mechanism permitting the user to transfer and copy content from one window to another, where content may include audio video, and multimedia [Mindlin, paragraph 18]. For example, an audio clip presented in a source window may be selected and dragged to a destination window to send the audio clip to a second user via a text messaging application [Mindlin, paragraph 21]. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts to be shared with another user via drag and drop, as taught by Mindlin. This would allow a user to easily share videos with other users.
As discussed above, a lightweight presentation initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61] and while the video was presented in the lightweight presentation, a user provided input to switch the presentation of the media to a full-featured presentation application [Gupta, column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17], or the full-featured presentation application initially displayed the video [Gupta, column 12, lines 54-57] and the user switched to a lightweight presentation component [Gupta, column 12, line 57 to column 13, line 4], wherein the video is displayed by the same content player throughout [Gupta, column 2, lines 54-59]. Thus, a video will be displayed on the user interface whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application. Since Mindlin discloses split screen functionality that allows user to have two different windows open on the same device at the same time [Mindlin, paragraph 13] where one of the windows displays media such as video [paragraph 17, lines 8-15], the combination of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin disclose receiving input on the video whose playback started in the first user interface of the first application, and sharing the video in response to the input on the application displaying the video [Mindlin, paragraph 18].
Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin do not expressly teach that the indication of the detected input event initiating access to the content item is received while the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application, wherein the user interaction with the first content player is performed without interrupting the playback of the content item in the second user interface. Sun discloses in response to receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content, sharing the content along with content position information to a recipient [Sun, column 6, lines 18-39]. This would provide more precise sharing of content by allowing the sharer to share content at a particular play position [Sun, column 2, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the video of Gupta-Roberts-Mindlin to be shared with another user via a share instruction while the video is being played, as taught by Sun. This would provide more precise sharing of content. As discussed above, the content to be shared represents content whose playback started in the first user interface of the first mobile application [see Gupta, column 8, lines 50-61; column 9, lines 3-9; column 10, line 56 to column 11, line 17; column 12, line 54 to column 13, line 4]. Further, Sun discloses receiving a sharing instruction while an application program is playing content [Sun column 6, lines 18-39]. Nothing within Sun discloses stopping or pausing the currently playing content in response to receiving the share instruction. Thus, the content will continue to play uninterrupted after receiving the share instruction. Similar arguments have been presented for independent claims 10, 19, and 26 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-25, and 27-30 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 26. However, as discussed above, Gupta, in view of Roberts, in view of Mindlin, and further in view of Sun are considered to teach claims 1, 10, 19, and 26, and consequently, claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-25, and 27-30 are rejected.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite the following feature from Applicant’s specification: While the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application [paragraph 103; figure 4 – Content player 460 continues playback of the video], a continuous input gesture is performed to move the content player 460 to a location in the second mobile application to share the content item [paragraph 106, lines 1-7] all while the playback of the content item continues without interruption [paragraph 95, lines 4-7]. When taken as a whole, claim 1 would reflect that playback of the content item will continue without interruption (1) when moving from the first user interface associated with the first mobile application to the second user interface associated with the second mobile application, and (2) during a continuous input gesture (e.g. drag) on the second mobile application to share the content item such that the content item will be accessible by the second content player. This is also described with respect to [figure 5, ‘500b’] of Applicant’s disclosure, where the content item is being played in the second user interface of the second mobile application [paragraph 107, lines 3-6] and a continuous input gesture is performed to move the content player 510b to a location in the second mobile application to share the content item, all while the content item continues playback without interruption [paragraph 110, lines 5-11].
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118