Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on January 20, 2026 for patent application 18/327,561 filed on June 1, 2023.
Claims 1-5, 9-14 and 18-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (Pub. No.: US 2023/0024761) in view of Hall et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0041998) and Mitchard et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0021941).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for video displaying, applied to a client, the method comprising: displaying a first page corresponding to a first live streaming (Fig. 2, element 201; Fig. 6), wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple followed live streams (Fig. 7, para. [0091]; element “Return to video 1.” Video n can be seen as a “last one of multiple videos.” Wu discloses a user selecting and watching multiple related videos, which can be seen as content which the user follows. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below.), wherein the followed live streams are live streams from creators followed by a first user (para. [0056]. Again, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below which more explicitly addresses the concept of the live videos corresponding to creators who are followed by the first user); in response to detecting that the first live streaming is playing as the last one of the followed live streams (para. [0091]; “In another embodiment, in a case where a plurality of second videos are present, the terminal may play the plurality of second videos in the playback interface, play other second videos in response to a slide operation on the second video as played currently, and display a second return control on the playback interface while playing to the last second video of the plurality of second videos.”) and in further response to a first slide operation triggered by the first user on the first page, switching from the first page corresponding to the first live streaming to a second page corresponding to a second video (Fig. 6, para. [0088]), in a recommended video stream of a second type corresponding to the first user (paras. [0057] and [0126]).
It could be argued that Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple sequentially ranked followed live streams. However, in analogous art, Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Wu and Hall does not explicitly disclose switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. However, in analogous art, Mitchard discloses “outputting on the display the video content; automatically playing the video content or playing the video content when the user selects (e.g., clicks on) the content; detecting a swipe interaction in any direction on the touch sensitive interface; in response to a swipe interaction the video player switching to an additional video stream; in response to a further swipe interaction in the same direction the video player switching to (e.g. an unlimited number of) additional video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream; and in response to a further swipe interaction in the opposite direction the video player switching back to (e.g. an unlimited number of) previous video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream (para. [0016]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu and Hall to allow for presenting the first page corresponding to the first video in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for an intuitive mechanism by which users could navigate between videos, which could potentially increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein first prompt information is presented in a predetermined region of the first page, to prompt the first user to watch the recommended video stream (Wu, Fig. 8, para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: presenting second prompt information during triggering of the first slide operation by the first user, wherein the second prompt information is used to prompt the first user to finish the first slide operation to watch the recommended video stream (Wu, para. [0094]; see also figure 8 and paras. [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein displaying the first page corresponding to the first live streaming comprises displaying a first image in the first live streaming on the first page, and switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to the second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page comprises: displaying a second image in the first live streaming on the first page (Wu, paras. [0090] and [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the recommended video stream comprises a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos (Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wu and Mitchard to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored on the memory, to cause the device to perform: displaying a first page corresponding to a first live streaming (Fig. 2, element 201; Fig. 6), wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple followed live streams (Fig. 7, para. [0091]; element “Return to video 1.” Video n can be seen as a “last one of multiple videos.” Wu discloses a user selecting and watching multiple related videos, which can be seen as content which the user follows. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below.), wherein the followed live streams are live streams from creators followed by a first user (para. [0056]. Again, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below which more explicitly addresses the concept of the live videos corresponding to creators who are followed by the first user) in response to detecting that the first live streaming is playing as the last one of the followed live streams (para. [0091]; “In another embodiment, in a case where a plurality of second videos are present, the terminal may play the plurality of second videos in the playback interface, play other second videos in response to a slide operation on the second video as played currently, and display a second return control on the playback interface while playing to the last second video of the plurality of second videos.”) and in further response to a first slide operation triggered by the first user on the first page, switching from the first page corresponding to the first live streaming to a second page corresponding to a second video (Fig. 6, para. [0088]), in a recommended video stream of a second type corresponding to the first user (paras. [0057] and [0126]).
It could be argued that Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple sequentially ranked followed live streams. However, in analogous art, Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Wu and Hall does not explicitly disclose switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. However, in analogous art, Mitchard discloses “outputting on the display the video content; automatically playing the video content or playing the video content when the user selects (e.g., clicks on) the content; detecting a swipe interaction in any direction on the touch sensitive interface; in response to a swipe interaction the video player switching to an additional video stream; in response to a further swipe interaction in the same direction the video player switching to (e.g. an unlimited number of) additional video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream; and in response to a further swipe interaction in the opposite direction the video player switching back to (e.g. an unlimited number of) previous video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream (para. [0016]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu and Hall to allow for presenting the first page corresponding to the first video in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for an intuitive mechanism by which users could navigate between videos, which could potentially increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the device according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: presenting first prompt information in a predetermined region of the first page, to prompt the first user to watch the recommended video stream (Wu, Fig. 8, para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the device according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: presenting second prompt information during triggering of the first slide operation by the first user, wherein the second prompt information is used to prompt the first user to finish the first slide operation to watch the recommended video stream (Wu, para. [0094]; see also figure 8 and paras. [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the device according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein displaying the first page corresponding to the first live streaming comprises displaying a first image in the first live streaming on the first page, and switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to the second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page comprises displaying a second image in the first live streaming on the first page (Wu, paras. [0090] and [0091]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the device according to claim 15, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the recommended video stream comprises a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos (Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wu and Mitchard to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions instruct a device to perform: displaying a first page corresponding to a first live streaming (Fig. 2, element 201; Fig. 6), wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple followed live streams (Fig. 7, para. [0091]; element “Return to video 1.” Video n can be seen as a “last one of multiple videos.” Wu discloses a user selecting and watching multiple related videos, which can be seen as content which the user follows. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below.), wherein the followed live streams are live streams from creators followed by a first user (para. [0056]. Again, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below which more explicitly addresses the concept of the live videos corresponding to creators who are followed by the first user); in response to detecting that the first live streaming is playing as the last one of the followed live streams (para. [0091]; “In another embodiment, in a case where a plurality of second videos are present, the terminal may play the plurality of second videos in the playback interface, play other second videos in response to a slide operation on the second video as played currently, and display a second return control on the playback interface while playing to the last second video of the plurality of second videos.”) and in further response to a first slide operation triggered by the first user on the first page, switching from the first page corresponding to the first live streaming to a second page corresponding to a second video (Fig. 6, para. [0088]), in a recommended video stream of a second type corresponding to the first user (paras. [0057] and [0126]).
It could be argued that Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple sequentially ranked followed live streams. However, in analogous art, Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Wu and Hall does not explicitly disclose switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. However, in analogous art, Mitchard discloses “outputting on the display the video content; automatically playing the video content or playing the video content when the user selects (e.g., clicks on) the content; detecting a swipe interaction in any direction on the touch sensitive interface; in response to a swipe interaction the video player switching to an additional video stream; in response to a further swipe interaction in the same direction the video player switching to (e.g. an unlimited number of) additional video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream; and in response to a further swipe interaction in the opposite direction the video player switching back to (e.g. an unlimited number of) previous video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream (para. [0016]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu and Hall to allow for presenting the first page corresponding to the first video in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for an intuitive mechanism by which users could navigate between videos, which could potentially increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, and further discloses wherein the instructions further instruct the device to perform: displaying a second image in the first live streaming on the first page (Wu, paras. [0090] and [0091]).
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (Pub. No.: US 2023/0024761) in view of Hall et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0041998), Mitchard et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0021941) and Lewis et al. (Pat. No.: US 9,876,748).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for video displaying, applied to a client, the method comprising: displaying a first page corresponding to a first live streaming (Fig. 2, element 201; Fig. 6), wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple followed live streams (Fig. 7, para. [0091]; element “Return to video 1.” Video n can be seen as a “last one of multiple videos.” Wu discloses a user selecting and watching multiple related videos, which can be seen as content which the user follows. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below.), wherein the followed live streams are live streams from creators followed by a first user (para. [0056]. Again, Examiner will also provide a redundant rejection below which more explicitly addresses the concept of the live videos corresponding to creators who are followed by the first user); in response to detecting that the first live streaming is playing as the last one of the followed live streams (para. [0091]; “In another embodiment, in a case where a plurality of second videos are present, the terminal may play the plurality of second videos in the playback interface, play other second videos in response to a slide operation on the second video as played currently, and display a second return control on the playback interface while playing to the last second video of the plurality of second videos.”) and in further response to a first slide operation triggered by the first user on the first page, switching from the first page corresponding to the first live streaming to a second page corresponding to a second video (Fig. 6, para. [0088]), in a recommended video stream of a second type corresponding to the first user (paras. [0057] and [0126]).
It could be argued that Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first live streaming is a last one of multiple sequentially ranked followed live streams. However, in analogous art, Hall discloses that “the highest-ranked video can automatically begin streaming to the user's device and be displayed on such device. The user can then choose to watch the highest-ranked video in full or in part, or to skip the video such as by clicking on a skip icon on the display on the user's device, or by clicking on the title of another video displayed on the user's screen or the image for another video displayed on the user's screen. Such action by the user will be sent by the user's device to server 20. If the user simply performs an action interpreted as a skip command, then the server 20 will either begin streaming the second-highest ranked video on the list, or the server 20 can perform another search of the first thousand group of videos (which may have been updated since the user began watching the highest-ranked video in the initial list) and generate another ranking of videos and then provide updated video information to the user based on the second ranking (e.g., begin streaming the highest-ranked video in the second list and provide the titles and/or screen image(s) for additional videos in the list). The server 20 may be programmed to perform such additional searches and rankings for each user on a scheduled basis (e.g., every two minutes while the user is connected to or logged into the server 20), on a basis such as directed by the user (e.g., the user clicks an icon titled “Generate a New List of Videos” or the like), or on a combination of some user action or inaction, timing, and the remaining time status for a video currently being streamed to the user's device (para. [0049]),” which teaches that after the lowest ranked video of a first list is played, the highest ranked video of a second list can be played. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to allow for the recommended video stream to comprise a plurality of videos ranked in a predetermined order, and the second video is a first-ranked video of the plurality of videos. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to watch all of the videos in a certain, predefined category, before being switched to watching recommended videos, starting with the highest ranked, more well-matched recommended video, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Wu and Hall does not explicitly disclose switching back to the first page corresponding to the first live streaming in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. However, in analogous art, Mitchard discloses “outputting on the display the video content; automatically playing the video content or playing the video content when the user selects (e.g., clicks on) the content; detecting a swipe interaction in any direction on the touch sensitive interface; in response to a swipe interaction the video player switching to an additional video stream; in response to a further swipe interaction in the same direction the video player switching to (e.g. an unlimited number of) additional video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream; and in response to a further swipe interaction in the opposite direction the video player switching back to (e.g. an unlimited number of) previous video streams, and eventually returning to the original video stream (para. [0016]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu and Hall to allow for presenting the first page corresponding to the first video in response to a second slide operation triggered by the first user on the second page, wherein a slide direction of the first slide operation is opposite to a slide direction of the second slide operation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for an intuitive mechanism by which users could navigate between videos, which could potentially increase user satisfaction with the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard does not explicitly disclose wherein the first video is in a video stream followed by a first user, and thus also does not disclose wherein the video stream followed by the first user comprises live videos corresponding to users who are followed by the first user. However, in analogous art, Lewis discloses that “notification system 104 generated and sent this notification 304 to the user account displayed via interface 300 for presentation as a feed item in center feed section 302 because the user associated with the previously indicated in interest in the video series “Under the Hood.” For example, the user may have subscribed to Channel X, indicating an inferred interest in videos provided by Channel X. In another example, the user may have provided a stronger indication of interest in the video series “Under the Hood” by liking the video series, watching one or more videos in the series multiple times, sharing the video series with her friends, posting the a link to the video series at a social networking account owned by the user, or saving the video series in a favorites file at a user account the user has established with media world (col. 10, ln. 61 – col. 11, ln. 8).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, Hall and Mitchard to allow for the first video to be in a video stream followed by a first user, wherein the video stream followed by the first user comprises live videos corresponding to users who are followed by the first user. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be presented with content of interest to said user, including content from other users that said user was following.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected as shown in section 3, above, but wherein the independent claim on which they depend is rejected in view of Wu, Mitchard and Lewis, as shown in this section, or wherein the independent claim is rejected as shown above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (Pub. No.: US 2023/0024761) in view of Hall et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0041998), Mitchard et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0021941) and Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0392394).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose sending a vibration request to an operating system of a terminal device, wherein the vibration request is used to request the terminal device to provide a vibration response, and the terminal device is a terminal device on which the client runs. However, in analogous art, Li discloses a “vibration response module [that] is configured to trigger, when the target video file is played at the time point, a sensor of a terminal device to vibrate according to the vibration parameter corresponding to the time point in response to the vibration event. According to the apparatus for processing a video in the embodiment of the present disclosure, a vibration event may be added in the original video file, so that when the video is played to a position of the added vibration event, a vibration behavior corresponding to the content is displayed to the user while playing the original content of the video. For a video editor, a complete new editing method is added. A vibration may be added to better represent a video of the editor, and a vibration may be added in the live streaming to interact with audiences better (para. [0067]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, Hall and Mitchard to allow for sending a vibration request to an operating system of a terminal device, wherein the vibration request is used to request the terminal device to provide a vibration response, and the terminal device is a terminal device on which the client runs. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that “[f]or video audiences, a new watching feeling may be provided, and when watching videos and live streaming, a four-dimensional effect is simulated through vibration of the terminal device, a viewer may have an immersive experience when watching a video on a client, which greatly improves the user experience of watching a video (Li, para. [0067]).”
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wu, Hall and Mitchard discloses the device according to claim 10, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: sending a vibration request to an operating system of a terminal device, wherein the vibration request is used to request the terminal device to provide a vibration response, and the terminal device is a terminal device on which the client runs. However, in analogous art, Li discloses a “vibration response module [that] is configured to trigger, when the target video file is played at the time point, a sensor of a terminal device to vibrate according to the vibration parameter corresponding to the time point in response to the vibration event. According to the apparatus for processing a video in the embodiment of the present disclosure, a vibration event may be added in the original video file, so that when the video is played to a position of the added vibration event, a vibration behavior corresponding to the content is displayed to the user while playing the original content of the video. For a video editor, a complete new editing method is added. A vibration may be added to better represent a video of the editor, and a vibration may be added in the live streaming to interact with audiences better (para. [0067]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu, Hall and Mitchard to allow for sending a vibration request to an operating system of a terminal device, wherein the vibration request is used to request the terminal device to provide a vibration response, and the terminal device is a terminal device on which the client runs. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that “[f]or video audiences, a new watching feeling may be provided, and when watching videos and live streaming, a four-dimensional effect is simulated through vibration of the terminal device, a viewer may have an immersive experience when watching a video on a client, which greatly improves the user experience of watching a video (Li, para. [0067]).”
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (Pub. No.: US 2023/0024761) in view of Hall et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0041998), Mitchard et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0021941), Lewis et al. (Pat. No.: US 9,876,748) and Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0392394).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected as shown in section 5, above, but wherein the independent claim on which they depend in rejected in view of Wu, Mitchard and Lewis, as shown in section 4, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Hall.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 9-14 and 18-20 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights