CTNF 18/291,061 CTNF 77409 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the application filed 01/22/2024. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement (filed 07/22/2024) has been received, entered into the record, and considered. A copy of PTO 1449 form is attached. Drawings 3. The drawings filed 01/22/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes. Specification 06-31 AIA 4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Descriptive Title Required The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 07-34-05 Claim 1 recites the limitation “the browser” (line 8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-21 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of their base claims. 07-34-05 Claim 19 recites the limitation “the browser” (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decoding unit”, and “a playing unit” (in claim 19). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may: (a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or (b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181. If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 8. 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 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, the limitations “selecting a target decoding library from a plurality of decoding libraries according to attributes of the media information to be played, wherein the plurality of decoding libraries are obtained by pre-compiling a decoding program in multiple ways respectively”, “utilizing the target decoding library to decode the media information to be played to obtain playing information” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “a browser” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f) and “acquiring media information to be played” and “playing the playing information” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and playing data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a browser” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “acquiring media information to be played” and “playing the playing information” the courts have identified mere data gathering and playing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18, the limitations “determining a first key frame of a gop interval of a frame corresponding to a second moment in response to acquiring a jump operation at the second moment”; “calculating a duration of each frame according to a frame rate”; and “determining a target frame to start playing from the target frame according to the duration of each frame” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 19, the limitations “select a target decoding library from a plurality of decoding libraries according to attributes of the media information to be played, wherein the plurality of decoding libraries are obtained by pre-compiling a decoding program in multiple ways respectively”, and “utilize the target decoding library to decode the media information to be played to obtain playing information” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decoding unit”, “a playing unit”, and “a browser” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f) and “acquire media information to be played” and “play the playing information” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and playing data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decoding unit”, “a playing unit”, and “a browser” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “acquire media information to be played” and “play the playing information” the courts have identified mere data gathering and playing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering and playing do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 20, the limitations “an electronic device, comprising: a processor; a memory comprising one or more computer program instructions; wherein the one or more computer program instructions are stored in the memory and implement the instructions of the information playing method of claim 1 when executed by the processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 21, the limitations “a computer-readable storage medium non-transitorily storing computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer-readable instructions implement the information playing method of claim 1 when executed by a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 9. 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Julia et al. (US 20060195441) . It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. As to claim 1: Julia teaches a browser-based information playing method ([0002]: a system and method for delivering content to users on a network) , comprising: acquiring media information to be played; ([0034]: The content requestor 120 receives the heuristic determinations 154 and converts the heuristic determinations 154 into a request 122 for content. In the end form, the heuristic determinations 154 may be represented as parameters or other form of coded data, and the content request 122 is handled and received by a server-side content selection system 160; [0059]: the identified content resources are signaled to the requesting system. The content resources may include content items for different kinds of devices and communications. For example, the content resources may include a packaged media content and/or media content combined with programmatic attributes for playing back or presenting media and enabling interactions by the user. Such content may be delivered for use with a programmatic resource of a user's computer, such as the user's web browser, media player, or on the user's desktop. Examples of content resources include files or sets of data in which audio, video, images and/or text can be rendered and/or played back. More specific examples of content resources include banner ads having text, images, video and/or audio, with links to network sites where services and products are offered. Another example of a media content resource includes audio/video commercials and messages, or presentations that require user-input, such as surveys); selecting a target decoding library from a plurality of decoding libraries according to attributes of the media information to be played, wherein the plurality of decoding libraries are obtained by pre-compiling a decoding program in multiple ways respectively; utilizing the target decoding library to decode the media information to be played to obtain playing information ([0017]: The content requestor component communicates a set of coded data to a programmatic source that is external to the designated set, where the set of coded data represents selection criteria determined from the one or more profiles. When the set of coded data is decoded by the external programmatic source, the represented selection criteria enables programmatic selection of content resources from a content library. The selected content may be targeted for the designated system or network; [0035]: the content selection system 160 performs the act of selecting content resources 162 for the designated network 102. Generally, one or more embodiments provide that the content request 122 carries a set of coded data that specifies selection criteria or factors (such as provided by the heuristic determinations 154), and content selection system 160 decodes the coded data to identify selection criteria or profiles. In an embodiment such as shown, the content selection system 160 includes a content data library 165, and a heuristic/content association data 175. Under one implementation, heuristic/content association data 175 (e.g. a table or index) may include heuristic profile templates that exist on the content selection system 160 prior to the content request 122 specifying any parametric or coded data. The coded data included with the content request 122 may match or fit one or more of the predefined heuristic profiles, and content resources associated with those heuristic profile may then selected for the designated system 102. Thus, while the selection of content resources is made with the content selection system 160, the selection may be preordained by the heuristic determinations 154 made on the designated system 102; [0066]: The content selection module 550 uses the information about the content items and the profile information to select targeted content items for the user's system. As described with an embodiment of FIG. 2, for example, the content selection module 550 may receive programmatic analysis tools in the form of heuristics and heuristic data models to enable heuristic based determinations to be made from the profile inputs 551 of the usage monitor 555. The profile inputs 551 may be used to create profiles (such as described with FIG. 2) and to execute determinative heuristics that yield result-oriented parameters. These parameters are used to form content requests 511 of the content management system 558. As described elsewhere, the content management system 558 decodes the content requests 511 using, for example, heuristic profiles, and selects targeted content items 515 for delivery to the designated network 502. In an embodiment shown, the content management system 558 includes a content or media library that it manages); and playing the playing information based on the browser ([0068]: delivered content items 515 may be distributed to one or more devices of the system. In one embodiment, all content items are made accessible to a content distribution component 565. The content distribution component 565 distributes the content to all or select devices. In one embodiment, the content distribution component 565 can reformat content items 515 for different platforms and device capabilities (e.g. screen resolution, audio capabilities, available bandwidth), as well as device-specific applications. Devices on different platforms sometimes use different components to perform the same functionality. Thus, if a particular content item 515 is a banner advertisement or other web-based content, the content distribution component 565 may format or configure the content item 515 for display on each of the media station and the cellular device. Each of these devices may employ different web browsers, suited for the particular platform and capabilities of the respected devices. Thus, according to one embodiment, the content distribution component 565 may format the particular content item for use on each platform, device form-factor (including screen resolution) and pertinent application. When multiple devices are contemplated, the content distribution component 565 may be configured to identify what devices are to receive particular content items, and also to ensure the received content items are properly formatted. Furthermore, the content distribution module 565 may be configured to ensure the content items 515 are actually delivered to the pertinent devices of the user; [0071]: While embodiments described above provide for content resources to be delivered to a requesting system, alternative embodiments may return data that enables targeted content delivery form other sources. For example, the content selection system 160 (FIG. 1) may generate cookies are other data structures that are accessible through the user's web browser or media player. The cookies may have a certain code that indicates delivery of specific web content or advertisements when the user browsers a designated network location or site). As to claim 2: Julia teaches creating a shared memory of a main thread and a decoding thread before acquiring the media information to be played, wherein the shared memory comprises a read-in memory; wherein acquiring the media information to be played comprises: acquiring the media information to be played by the main thread and storing the media information to be played in the read-in memory; wherein utilizing the target decoding library to decode the media information to be played to obtain the playing information comprises: the decoding thread acquiring the media information to be played from the read-in memory and utilizing the target decoding library to decode the media information to be played to obtain the playing information ([0018-0021], [0046], and [0065-0066]). As to claim 3: Julia teaches acquiring the media information to be played by the main thread and storing the media information to be played to the read-in memory comprises any of the following: acquiring, by the main thread, a uniform resource locator for the media information to be played, and acquiring the media information to be played based on the uniform resource locator, and storing the media information to be played into the read-in memory; acquiring the media information to be played by the main thread by a single read operation, providing the media information to be played to the read-in memory; or fragmenting the media information to be played into a plurality of media fragments, sequentially acquiring the plurality of media fragments by the main thread, sequentially storing the plurality of media fragments into the read-in memory ([0030], [0040], [0059-0061], and [0069]). . As to claim 4: Julia teaches in response to fragmenting the media information to be played into the plurality of media fragments, the read-in memory comprises ring memory ([0021], and [0067-0069]). As to claim 5: Julia teaches a read-in data cursor is provided in the ring memory, the read-in data cursor indicates a current location in the ring memory where the media information to be played has been read by the decoding thread; and the method further comprises: in response to a data length of a current media fragment exceeding a memory length remaining in the ring memory, at least a portion of the data of the current media fragment overwrites a memory space between a queue head pointer of the ring memory to a location where the read-in data cursor is located ([0017-0021], and [0035]). As to claim 6: Julia teaches triggering a read lock in response to the data length of the current media fragment being greater than an available length, wherein the available length is equal to a sum of a difference between a total length of the read-in memory and a length of the media information currently stored in the read-in memory and a length between the queue head pointer of the read-in memory and the position where the read-in data cursor is located ([0059-0061]). As to claim 8: Julia teaches the shared memory further comprises a write-in memory, decoded playing information is written to the write-in memory; and playing the playing information based on the browser comprises: reading the decoded playing information from the write-in memory; sequentially generating a plurality of media playing tasks based on the playing information; and executing the plurality of media playing tasks to play the playing information ([0035] and [0059-0061]). As to claim 9: Julia teaches the write-in memory is a ring memory and the write-in memory is provided with a write data cursor, and the method further comprises: triggering a write lock in response to a data length of decoded data decoded and obtained by the decoding thread being greater than an available write-in memory length, wherein the decoded data is a portion of data in the playing information, wherein the available write-in memory length is equal to a sum of a difference between a total length of the write-in memory and a length of the decoded data currently stored in the write-in memory and a length between a queue head pointer of the write-in memory and a position where the write data cursor is located ([0035] and [0059-0061]). As to claim 11: Julia teaches the browser further comprises a browser database, decoded playing information is written to the browser database; and playing the playing information based on the browser comprises: reading the decoded playing information from the browser database; sequentially generating a plurality of media playing tasks based on the playing information; and executing the plurality of media playing tasks to play the playing information ([0017-0018], [0035] and [0066]). As to claim 12: Julia teaches the playing information comprises video data, and the plurality of media playing tasks comprises at least one video playing task; and sequentially generating the plurality of media playing tasks based on the playing information comprises: rendering the video data to sequentially generate the at least one video playing task ([0018], [0025] and [0040-0041]). As to claim 13: Julia teaches the playing information further comprises audio data, the plurality of media playing tasks comprises at least one audio playing task; and sequentially generating the plurality of media playing tasks based on the playing information further comprises: creating at least two audio task caches; and sequentially injecting the audio data in different time periods into the at least two audio task caches, wherein playing the audio data in each audio task cache is treated as an audio playing task ([0018], [0030] and [0059]). As to claim 14: Julia teaches sequentially generating the plurality of media playing tasks based on the playing information further comprises: adjusting progress of the at least one audio playing task and the at least one video playing task, such that the at least one audio playing task and the at least one video playing task are synchronized ([0018], [0030] and [0040-0041]). As to claim 18: Julia teaches determining a first key frame of a gop interval of a frame corresponding to a second moment in response to acquiring a jump operation at the second moment; calculating a duration of each frame according to a frame rate; and determining a target frame to start playing from the target frame according to the duration of each frame ([0026-0028]). As to claim 19: Refer to the discussion of claims 1 above for rejection. Claim 19 is the same as claim 1, except claim 19 is an apparatus claim and claim 1 is a method claim. As to claim 20: Julia teaches an electronic device, comprising: a processor; a memory comprising one or more computer program instructions; wherein the one or more computer program instructions are stored in the memory and implement the instructions of the information playing method of claim 1 when executed by the processor ([0021]). As to claim 21: Julia teaches computer-readable storage medium non-transitorily storing computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer-readable instructions implement the information playing method of claim 1 when executed by a processor ([0021]). Allowable Subject Matter 10. Claims 7, 10, 15, and 17 are 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, subject to the 112/101 rejections detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner. Conclusion 11. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art. Contact Information 07-101 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form . /VAN H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 2 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 3 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 4 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 5 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 6 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 7 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 8 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 9 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 10 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 11 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 12 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 13 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 14 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 15 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 16 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 17 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 18 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 19 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/291,061 Page 20 Art Unit: 2199
Prosecution Insights