DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 13, 16-17, and 20-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 13, 16-17, and 20-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “displaying the first work and the browsing information is based on a trigger operation”. However, a “trigger operation” has been previously introduced. As a result, is it unclear whether the trigger operation is referring to the previously introduced trigger operation or a second trigger operation. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Similarly for claims 17 and 20.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Benfield et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0027172), referred to as Benfield herein [previously cited].
Geller et. al. (US Patent Number 10,001,904), referred to as Geller herein [previously cited].
Peterson et al. (US Patent Number 9,325,653), referred to as Peterson herein [previously cited].
Garmark et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0108929), referred to as Garmark herein [previously cited].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-5, 8, 13, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Geller in further view of Benfield.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a work display method applied to a client of a first user, comprising (Peterson, Fig. 1 with 5:64-6:11 – user devices. 9:33-44 – request for content page):
in response to a trigger operation of the first user for performing work display, determining whether the trigger operation for performing work display acts on a first work posted by the first user; in accordance with the trigger operation for performing work display acting on a first work posted by the first user, and in response to receiving an instruction for displaying the first work and browsing information, displaying the first work and the browsing information in a work display page (Peterson, Fig. 8A Elements 800-810 with 12:7-31 – in response to a page request, the characteristics of the viewer are determined. If the user is the owner, the owner’s view is displayed. Figs. 7A-7B with 10:21-32 – owner’s view includes content item by the owner),
wherein the instruction for displaying the first work and the browsing information is based on a trigger operation acting on an interaction message of the first work and is triggered when the first user views a work posted by the first user, wherein the interaction message is a reminder message for the first user generated based on an interaction operation performed by a second user of a plurality of second users on the first work (Peterson, Figs. 2, 11-13 with 7:20-34, 14:51-67, 15:40-16:3 – notification to the author is sent when the content receives a comment and includes a link for navigating to a page where the comment was made. The comment can be made on the page displaying the work. Fig. 7A with 10:21-49 – the notification can be made/present when the user is viewing the work page. Applicant’s Specification as published at ¶0046 describes reminder messages as including a message indicating that another user interacts with the work);
dynamically displaying a first list
However, Peterson appears not to expressly disclose the limitations shown in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Geller discloses an interface displaying a video player and associated comments (Geller, Abstract), including
dynamically displaying a first list at a first speed (Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video. Comments are linked with timestamps in the video, and scrolled automatically as the play position of the video advances. Comments with an earlier timestamp are shown above comments with a later timestamp. Scrolling will happen in the upward direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display order of Peterson to include scrolling according to the play head movement based on the teachings of Geller. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to more effectively visualize comment relationships to video position.
However, Peterson as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the list is in a target region of the first work. However, in the same field of endeavor, Benfield discloses a video browsing interface (Benfield, Figs. 13 and 28 with ¶0030, ¶0227), including
the list is in a target region of the first work (Benfield, Figs. 15-17 with ¶0098-¶0103 – conversation area is included within the work display area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display of Benfield as modified to include displaying within the first work based on the teachings of Benfield. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve screen real-estate and maximize the display area for the first work.
Regarding claim 4, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein each of pieces of the user identification information is displayed at a same speed and in a same direction in the target region (Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first work is a target video posted by the first user, and displaying the first work in the work display page comprises: playing the target video in the work display page (Peterson, Figs. 7A-7B with 10:21-32 – owner’s view includes content item by the owner. 17:18-25 – content item may be a video. Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the first work is a target video posted by the first user, and displaying, the first work in the work display page comprises: playing the target video in the work display page (Peterson, Figs. 7A-7B with 10:21-32 – owner’s view includes content item by the owner. 17:18-25 – content item may be a video. Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video).
Regarding claim 13, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses before dynamically displaying the plurality of interaction history records of the second users of the first work, further comprising: sending an acquisition request carrying work identification information of the first work to a server, and receiving the plurality of interaction operation history records of the first work returned by the server based on the acquisition request (Peterson, 8:51-9:43 – requesting a page view from the server causes content and comment retrieval, based on canonical ID, to generate the requested page).
Regarding claim 16, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses before dynamically displaying the plurality of interaction operation history records of the second users of the first work in the target region of the first work , further comprising: sending an acquisition request carrying work identification information of the first work to a server, and receiving the plurality of interaction operation history records of the first work returned by the server based on the acquisition request (Peterson, 8:51-9:43 – requesting a page view from the server causes content and comment retrieval, based on canonical ID, to generate the requested page).
Regarding claim 17, Peterson discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform following steps (Peterson, Fig. 1 with 5:64-6:11 – user devices. 4:12-22, 18:55-63 – processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory):
in response to a trigger operation of the first user for performing work display, determining whether the trigger operation for performing work display acts on a first work posted by the first user; In accordance with the trigger operation for performing work display acting on the first work posted by the first user, and in response to receiving an instruction for displaying the first work and browsing information, displaying the first work and the browsing information in a work display page (Peterson, Fig. 8A Elements 800-810 with 12:7-31 – in response to a page request, the characteristics of the viewer are determined. If the user is the owner, the owner’s view is displayed. Figs. 7A-7B with 10:21-32 – owner’s view includes content item by the owner),
wherein the instructions for displaying the first work and the browsing information is based on a trigger operation acting on an interaction message of the first work and is triggered when the first user views a work posted by the first user, wherein the interaction message is a reminder message for the first user generated based on an interaction operation performed by a second user of a plurality of second users on the first work (Peterson, Figs. 2, 11-13 with 7:20-34, 14:51-67, 15:40-16:3 – notification to the author is sent when the content receives a comment and includes a link for navigating to a page where the comment was made. The comment can be made on the page displaying the work. Fig. 7A with 10:21-49 – the notification can be made/present when the user is viewing the work page. Applicant’s Specification as published at ¶0046 describes reminder messages as including a message indicating that another user interacts with the work); and
dynamically displaying a first list page. Comments can be sorted based on recency or other criteria. Comments can be made by multiple other users);
However, Peterson appears not to expressly disclose the limitations shown in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Geller discloses an interface displaying a video player and associated comments (Geller, Abstract), including
dynamically displaying a first list at a first speed (Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video. Comments are linked with timestamps in the video, and scrolled automatically as the play position of the video advances. Comments with an earlier timestamp are shown above comments with a later timestamp. Scrolling will happen in the upward direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display order of Peterson to include scrolling according to the play head movement based on the teachings of Geller. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to more effectively visualize comment relationships to video position.
However, Peterson as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the list is in a target region of the first work. However, in the same field of endeavor, Benfield discloses a video browsing interface (Benfield, Figs. 13 and 28 with ¶0030, ¶0227), including
the list is in a target region of the first work (Benfield, Figs. 15-17 with ¶0098-¶0103 – conversation area is included within the work display area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display of Benfield as modified to include displaying within the first work based on the teachings of Benfield. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve screen real-estate and maximize the display area for the first work.
Regarding claim 20, Peterson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which stores a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform following steps (Peterson, Fig. 1 with 5:64-6:11 – user devices. 4:12-22, 18:55-63 – processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory):
In response to a trigger operation of the firs user for performing work display, determining whether the trigger operation for performing work display acts on a first work posted by the first user; In accordance with the trigger operation for performing work display acting on the first work posted by the first user, and in response to receiving an instruction for displaying the first work and browsing information, displaying the first work and the browsing information in a work display page (Peterson, Fig. 8A Elements 800-810 with 12:7-31 – in response to a page request, the characteristics of the viewer are determined. If the user is the owner, the owner’s view is displayed. Figs. 7A-7B with 10:21-32 – owner’s view includes content item by the owner),
wherein the instruction for displaying the first work and the browsing information is based on a trigger operation acting on an interaction message of the first work and is triggered when the first user views a work posted by the first user, wherein the interaction message is a reminder message for the first user generated based on an interaction operation performed by a second user of a plurality of second users on the first work (Peterson, Figs. 2, 11-13 with 7:20-34, 14:51-67, 15:40-16:3 – notification to the author is sent when the content receives a comment and includes a link for navigating to a page where the comment was made. The comment can be made on the page displaying the work. Fig. 7A with 10:21-49 – the notification can be made/present when the user is viewing the work page. Applicant’s Specification as published at ¶0046 describes reminder messages as including a message indicating that another user interacts with the work); and
dynamically displaying a first list
However, Peterson appears not to expressly disclose the limitations shown in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Geller discloses an interface displaying a video player and associated comments (Geller, Abstract), including
dynamically displaying a first list at a first speed (Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video. Comments are linked with timestamps in the video, and scrolled automatically as the play position of the video advances. Comments with an earlier timestamp are shown above comments with a later timestamp. Scrolling will happen in the upward direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display order of Peterson to include scrolling according to the play head movement based on the teachings of Geller. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to more effectively visualize comment relationships to video position.
However, Peterson as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the list is in a target region of the first work. However, in the same field of endeavor, Benfield discloses a video browsing interface (Benfield, Figs. 13 and 28 with ¶0030, ¶0227), including
the list is in a target region of the first work (Benfield, Figs. 15-17 with ¶0098-¶0103 – conversation area is included within the work display area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comment display of Benfield as modified to include displaying within the first work based on the teachings of Benfield. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve screen real-estate and maximize the display area for the first work.
Regarding claim 21, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein dynamically displaying the first list at the first speed in the target region of the first work comprises: dynamically displaying, in the target region, user identification information of the second users and identification information of the interaction operation moving from a first boundary of the target region to a second boundary of the target region at the first speed and in a first direction, wherein the target region is in the work display page (Geller, Figs. 5-8 with 11:59-12:11, 15:48-15:60 – comments are scrolled according to play head movement speed as the play head moves through the video. Comments are linked with timestamps in the video, and scrolled automatically as the play position of the video advances. Comments with an earlier timestamp are shown above comments with a later timestamp. Scrolling will happen in the upward direction. Benfield, Figs. 15-17 with ¶0098 – conversation area is included within the work display area).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Geller in further view of Benfield in further view of Garmark.
Regarding claim 22, Peterson as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Peterson as modified appears not to expressly disclose in response to a sliding operation within the work display page, switching, in the work display page, to display a second work posted by the first user and a second list corresponding to the second work, wherein the second list comprises a plurality of interaction operation history records of the second work.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Garmark discloses a media playback interface (Garmark, ¶0002 and Title), including
a sliding operation within the work display page, switching, in the work display page, to display a second work (Garmark, ¶0086 and ¶0091 – a sliding gesture is used to move to the next track in a playlist of media content. ¶0147 – media content includes video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the media display of Peterson as modified to include a sliding input to move to the next work based on the teachings of Garmark. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the ease and convenience with which media content can be browsed, previewed, and selected for presentation (Garmark, ¶0006).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174