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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 9733809 B1, hereinafter Greene) in view of JOHNSTON et al. (US 20180113579 A1 hereinafter Johnston) and Fino (US 20130055082 A1)
Regarding independent claim 1, Greene discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a client device, a plurality of search result items that each correspond to a media content item (Search interface for media Col. 12 ln. 50-55);
presenting a user interface comprising a scrollable search result area to present two or more of the plurality of search result items, and a focus area to present a preview of a media content item corresponding to one of the plurality of search result items, wherein the scrollable search result area and the focus area are concurrently presented on a screen of the client device; (Fig. 4a-d illustrate user interface with results, and focused item 402 for playing media content concurrently col. 2 ln. 57-60 " UI that can include a media player portion and a scrollable portion").
receiving, while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area and the focus area on the screen of the client device, user touch inputs in the scrollable search result area, wherein the user touch inputs comprise a user swipe gesture to scroll vertically to a second search result item of the plurality of search result items, and a tap on the second search result item, wherein the user swipe gesture causes the two or more of the plurality of search result items to shift vertically upwards to scroll to the second search result item; (swipe to scroll vertically Fig. 3-4 and Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “swipe) to an area in the second portion (e.g., scrollable portion) of the UI. The input can be associated with an input device, such as a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, trackpad, etc. The input can be a click, a swipe, a gesture, a wheel rotation, etc”)
in response to receiving the user touch inputs, determining whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and (scroll (swipe touch) indicates item to select/play Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “second media item is to automatically play in the UI upon becoming visible in the UI.”)
Greene does not specifically teach in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device.
However, Johnston teaches in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device. [background with video preview of item which has focus from input ¶154 " As such, representations 606 are overlaid over a background that includes representative content from media item B (indicated in FIG. 6A by 610). The representative content is optionally a still image (e.g., pre-selected cover art associated with media item B, a still image from the current play position in media item B, etc.) and/or a video (e.g., a video preview of media item B"], [¶173 "The user interface optionally displays, as a background behind the representations of the suggested media, content that is representative of the media item that has the current focus such that as the media item with focus changes, the representative content, as the background, also changes accordingly, such as in FIG. 6A."]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the media scroll interface of Greene in order to have incorporated in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device of Johnston since both of these mechanisms are directed to media objects retrieval mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Johnston into Greene addresses problems with misinterpreting touch inputs for improved navigation (Col. 4 ln. 1-14)
Greene and Johnston do not specifically teach in response to receiving the user touch inputs, evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, whether the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and in response to determining that the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device.
However, Fino teaches in response to receiving the user touch inputs, evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, [Fig. 5B illustrates an interface that receives touch inputs (500) ¶163, with scrollable results (list 504) and focus (preview 512) ¶166]
the user touch inputs comprising a sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap to determine whether the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and [selection gesture can be a rolling (swipe) touch and tap (and/or) ¶126 "gesture may include one or more taps, one or more swipes (from left to right, right to left, upward and/or downward) and/or a rolling of a finger (from right to left, left to right, upward and/or downward) that has made contact with device 100."]
in response to determining that the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates the user selection of the second search result, [A sequence is needed to reach Fig. 5E-F (512, 544) where scroll leads to alignment and tap leads to further playing ¶177-178 "As content preview area 512 is scrolled, pointer object 516 comes into alignment with different graphical objects 514, and content items in sets of content items corresponding to those graphical objects 514 are previewed."…". In response to the detection of gesture 544, the content item the portion of which was playing prior to gesture 544 is played in its entirety, as shown in FIG. 5F where playback controls 502 shows Song A (i.e., Song A 506-A) as being played in its entirety."]
presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device. [gesture aligns interface for selection and preview of content ¶26 "Content items in the set corresponding to a graphical object that is aligned with the pointer object are previewed. The user may scroll the scrollable area to align different graphical objects with the pointer object, and thus quickly preview different sets of content items"] Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston in order to have incorporated the in response to receiving the user touch inputs, evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, whether the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and in response to determining that the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device as disclosed by Fino, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston since these mechanisms are directed to gesture-based media item navigation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Fino into Greene and Johnston would produce a mechanism for detecting a media-change input corresponds to movement in a first direction and ceases to play the initially-displayed media item in the respective region and plays a first media item that is adjacent to the initially-displayed media item in the first sequence, as disclosed by Fino, addresses reducing the cognitive burden to use interface in a more efficient way [Fino ¶5].
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claim 1. Greene further discloses receiving the user swipe gesture in the scrollable search result area. (Greene swipe to scroll vertically Fig. 3-4 and Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “swipe) to an area in the second portion (e.g., scrollable portion) of the UI. The input can be associated with an input device”)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 4, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claim 1. Johnston further discloses wherein the second media content item is a video trailer describing a video represented by the second media content item, a video clip comprising a subsection of the video, or the video. [Johnston background video preview ¶154]
Regarding dependent claim(s) 6, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claim 1. Johnston further discloses wherein prior to presenting the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item, presenting a thumbnail associated with the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area. [Johnston cover art, images, incomplete view in a background ¶154]
Regarding dependent claim(s) 7, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claim 1. Greene further discloses wherein each search result item of the plurality of search result items comprises metadata describing a corresponding media content item. (Greene metadata col. 5 ln. 23-34).
Regarding claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19, claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claims 1, 4 and 6. Therefore, claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claims 1, 4 and 6. Further see Greene. (col. 15 ln. 26-65) for a system and computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Fino, as applied above, and further in view of Morton et al. (US 2013/0057489 A1, hereinafter Morton).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claim 1. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino do not appear to specifically disclose wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user.
In the same field of endeavor, Morton discloses wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user (reads on Para 0034 & 0054-0056 and Fig. 5, in response to detecting the contact with the case, an operation to be performed is identified based on previously received input and/or performed operations in response to such input, as indicated by step C (120). A sequence of previous operations performed in response to user input is analyzed to identify an operation intended by the user).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Fino in order to have incorporated the wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user, as disclosed by Morton, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston since these mechanisms are directed to touch-based selectable object management mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Morton into Greene, Johnston and Fino would produce a mechanism for interpreting physical contact with a computing device, as disclosed by Morton, in threshold time or number of operations (see Abstract and ¶5).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, claims 10 and 16 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 3.
Claim 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Fino, as applied above, and further in view of Jorges et al. (US 2016/0104078 A1, hereinafter Jorges).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 5, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claims 1. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino do not appear to specifically disclose wherein a type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items.
In the same field of endeavor, Jorges discloses wherein a type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items (reads on Para 0014 and Fig. 3, the event list is determined based on a media consumption history associated with a user. As used herein, the media consumption history may include, but is not limited to, a user's previous video viewing history, the user's previous audio listening history, and/or information relating to the user's interactions with the previously played video and/or audio files).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston in order to have incorporated the type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items, as disclosed by Jorges into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Fino since these mechanisms are directed to media content presentation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Jorges into Greene, Johnston and Fino would produce a mechanism for determining a media playlist including one or more media files (e.g., videos) associated with the identified events based on the user profile, which may include, for example, a media consumption history, as disclosed by Jorges, in a less manual technique (see Abstract and ¶3).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, claims 12 and 18 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 5.
Claims 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Fino, as applied above, and further in view of Hoffert et al. (US 2015/0113407 A1, hereinafter Hoffert).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 8, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino discloses the method as in claims 1 and 7. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Fino do not appear to specifically disclose wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises: overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoffert discloses wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises: overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item (reads on Para 0081 and Fig. 5C-5L, the sequences of media items are sometimes represented by tiles that include information about corresponding media items represented by the tiles. The information optionally includes one or more of: text information, title).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Fino in order to have incorporated the overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item, as disclosed by Hoffert, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Fino since these mechanisms are directed to gesture-based media item navigation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Hoffert into Greene, Johnston and Fino would produce a mechanism for detecting a media-change input corresponds to movement in a first direction and ceases to play the initially-displayed media item in the respective region and plays a first media item that is adjacent to the initially-displayed media item in the first sequence, as disclosed by Hoffert, overcomes inconveniences and improves enjoyment (see Abstract and ¶5).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, claims 14 and 20 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 8. Therefore, claims 14 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026. In the remark, applicant argues that:
(1) Greene and Johnston and Santo-Gomez fail to teach " the user touch inputs comprising a sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap to determine whether the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and in response to determining that the sequence of the user swipe gesture followed by the tap indicates the user selection of the second search result, " as recited in amended claim 1 and discussed over interview.
As to point (1), Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection as set forth above of Greene in view of Johnston and Fino.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
DENNEY et al. (US 20090150784 A1) teaches scrollable video interface with preview playing in response to user actions and while interface is open (¶12).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references 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. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEAU SPRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-9919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PST.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 5712127212. 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.
/BEAU D SPRATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights