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 amendments, filed 10/03/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-42 are pending. Claims 1-20, 27 and 37 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the reasons sets forth below.
Applicant states, “Zimmerman is silent on trickplay operations.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. User can provide user input to play the video, and move a slider to forward or backward to view portions of the video (see paragraph 0003). Hence, Zimmerman teaches performing trickplay operation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (that is, applicant stated that Zimmerman is silent in regard to replacing spoiler information with an alternative preview), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (that is, applicant stated that Geshwind is silent in regard trick play operation), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, Geshwind discloses providing “the ability to manually (e.g., by pressing a button) specify the kind of special effects available with a VCR, but with `live` television, such as pauses, replays and slow motion replays, and the ability to fast forward and skip over unwanted material” (see col. 4 lines 15-23). Hence, Geshwind discloses trick play operations.”
In regard to applicant argument in regard to the newly added feature, simultaneously displaying preview images with a media asset, see the Office Action sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims recite the feature of “in response to determining that the preview image comprises the spoiler information, simultaneously providing for display, using the control circuitry, the media asset at the current play position and an alternative preview image for the preview image, wherein the alternative preview image is overlaid on the media asset.” However, the specification does not disclose simultaneously displaying an alternative preview image and the media asset when determined that the preview image comprises spoiler information and that the alternative preview image is overlaid on the said media asset. Paragraph 0082 (PG PUB) of the present application discloses:
“The preview images may be displayed simultaneously, for example, when the progress bar 900 is displayed or in response to a request from a user. Alternatively, an individual preview image may be displayed when the user selects, or hovers over, a part of the progress bar 900 corresponding to one of the play positions or markers 902, 904, 906, 908, 910, and 912.”
But the paragraph is silent in regard to displaying an alternative preview image simultaneously with media asset when spoiler information is detected/located in the preview image. It is noted that paragraph 0083 discloses “the markers 906, 908, 910, 912 for play positions with associated preview images that the user might not wish to view are visually distinguished from the markers 902, 904 for other play positions…. In this manner, the user is made aware that jumping to one of the distinguished play positions 906, 908, 910, 912 and, optionally, viewing the associated preview image, may cause them to see content that might spoil the content of the media asset.” However, no where found in the specification a disclosure that support the features of “in response to determining that the preview image comprises the spoiler information, simultaneously providing for display, using the control circuitry, the media asset at the current play position and an alternative preview image for the preview image, wherein the alternative preview image is overlaid on the media asset.”
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency of the independent claims and thereby are rejected under such.
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 21-26, 28-36 and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US PG PUB 2022/0150595) in view of Geshwind (US Pat. No. 7, 080, 392) and further in view of Murray (US Pat. No. 11, 979639).
Regarding claim 21, Zimmerman discloses a method comprising:
receiving, using control circuitry, a request for a trickplay operation of a media asset (see paragraph 0003 a slider element to view different portions of the video; see also paragraph 0085)
accessing, using the control circuitry, a current play position in the media asset (see paragraphs 0010-0011);
identifying, as part of the trickplay operation and using the control circuitry, a preview image corresponding to a respective play position in the media asset (see paragraph 0009 selecting portions and the portions are designated as the portion of the video to include in a preview; see paragraph 0084 considering any direction corresponding to user interaction initiates presenting the animation of the preview of the video; see paragraph 0010 selecting salient portions of the video to show in the preview; selecting a starting time and an ending time for each of one or more portions of the video and select number of frames to be selected from the portions of the video; see paragraph 0011 frames of the preview corresponds to user interface scrolling position; see also paragraph 0020);
determining, using the control circuitry and based on (a) the current play position and (b) metadata associated with the media asset, that the preview image comprises information (see paragraph 0085 scrolling in the second direction causes the preview to be animated in the backward progression; see paragraph 0084 swiping the user interface left or right causes the forward progression to animate the preview; see paragraph 0012 remove more frames from the corresponding portion of the video; see paragraph 0015 the preview animate in response to user scrolling down; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0057); and
in response to determining the at least one preview image comprises the information, providing for display, using the control circuitry, an alternative preview image for the preview image (see paragraph 0016 presenting an animation of the preview; see also paragraphs 0024 and 0087).
Claim 21 differs from Zimmerman in that the claim further requires the said information is spoiler information.
In the same field of endeavor Geshwind discloses spoiler information (see col. 7 lines 23-51 tagging spoiler segments separately with unused bit; see col. 25 lines 3-26 creating alternate versions of highlight summaries). In addition, Geshwind discloses receiving, using control circuitry, a request for a trickplay operation of a media asset (see col. 3 line 63-col. 4 line 23 and figure 4).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Geshwind it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman by specifically including spoiler information in order to provide a viewer to safely view a ‘digest’ or ‘highlight’ abstraction and to decide whether to view the entire program.
Claim 21 further differs from the combination of Zimmerman and Geshwind in that the claim further requires simultaneously displaying the media asset at the current position and a preview image for the preview, wherein the preview image is overlaid on the media asset.
In the same field of endeavor Murray discloses simultaneously displaying the media asset at the current position and a preview image for the preview, wherein the preview image is overlaid on the media asset (see col. 11 lines 38-57 and col. 27 lines 29-54 the preview window is overlaid on the media content displayed on the display device). Murray further discloses the remote control includes a previous/next button that allows forwarding and rewinding among different programs; using remote control previewing upcoming content; displaying backdrop information related to the media content (see col. 7 lines 10-32 and also see col. 2 lines 11-37).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Murray, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding the feature of simultaneously displaying a preview image with media asset in order to display a set of subsequent media frames on the internet-connected display device and to review content channels.
Regarding claim 22, Zimmerman discloses obtaining the alternative preview image by removing or masking, using the control circuitry, at least a portion of the preview image (see paragraph 0016 presenting an animation of the preview; see paragraph 0012 remove more frames from the corresponding portion of the video).
Regarding claim 23, Greshwind discloses retrieving the metadata associated with the media asset from a content provider, wherein the metadata comprises an indication that some or all preview images corresponding to play positions subsequent to the current play position should be modified (see figures 2-3 and col. 7 line 23-col. 8 line 4). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 24, Zimmerman discloses the retrieved metadata comprises identification of one or more segments of the media asset with one or more corresponding keywords relating to the media asset (see paragraphs 0051 and 0110).
Regarding claim 25, Zimmerman discloses retrieving, from a server, using second control circuitry, text data, audio data or video data relating to the media asset; using the second control circuitry, parsing the retrieved text data, audio data or video data to identify one or more keywords relating to the media asset; using the second control circuitry, identifying, based on the metadata, a segment of the media asset related to the identified one or more keywords; and adding to the metadata, using the second control circuitry, an indication that an alternative preview image should be generated for display in place of a preview image corresponding to a play position within the identified segment (see paragraphs 0046, 0051, 0063 and 0110).
Regarding claim 26, Zimmerman discloses using second control circuitry, parsing audio data, video data or closed caption data of the media asset; using the second control circuitry, identifying, based on the parsed audio data, video data or closed caption data, an event shown in the media asset at a particular play position; and adding to the metadata, using the second control circuitry, an indication that an alternative preview image should be generated for display in place of one or more preview images corresponding to play positions subsequent to the particular play position (see paragraphs 0046, 0056, 0051, 0063 and 0110).
Regarding claim 28, Zimmerman discloses retrieving, using the control circuitry, a user preference from a user profile, wherein generating for display the alternative preview image is further based on the user preference (see paragraphs 0009, 0055 and 0099).
Regarding claim 29, Zimmerman discloses monitoring, using the control circuitry, user interactions with a media application that ceased playing of segments of previously viewed media assets; determining, using the control circuitry, characteristics of the segments of the previously viewed media assets in which playing ceased; and using the control circuitry, storing the user preference, in the user profile, wherein the user preference is based on the characteristics of the segments, wherein generating for display the alternative preview image is further based on the metadata indicating that a characteristic of the preview image matches one of the characteristics of the segments (see paragraphs 0009, 0048, 0055 and 0099).
Regarding claim 30, Zimmerman discloses generating for display, using the control circuitry, a trickplay progress bar for display with the media asset, wherein the trickplay progress bar comprises a visual indication of the current play position, and a visual indication of the respective play position corresponding to the alternative preview image; wherein the visual indication of the respective play position corresponding to the alternative preview image is visually distinguished from one or more respective play positions corresponding to one or more unmodified preview images (see figures 1A-1C, 3A-3C and paragraphs 0010-0020).
Regarding claim 31, the limitation of claim 31 can be found in claim 21 above. Therefore claim 31 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 21 above.
Claims 32-36 and 38-40 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 22-26 and 28-30 respectively above.
Regarding claims 41-42, Zimmerman discloses less than the entire preview image is removed or masked (see paragraphs 0012 and 0016).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,064. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the Patent application recites a method comprising: generating for display, using control circuitry, a media asset; identifying, using the control circuitry, at least one preview image corresponding to a respective play position in either the media asset or a series including the media asset, where the respective play position is advanced with respect to a current play position in the media asset; determining, using the control circuitry, that an alternative preview image is to be displayed in place of the at least one preview image, based on the current play position and metadata associated with the media asset, wherein the metadata indicates a risk of spoiler information contained in the alternative preview image; obtaining the alternative preview image by modifying, using the control circuitry, a portion of the at least one preview image to remove or mask a portion of the at least one preview image containing spoiler information, wherein less than the entire preview image is masked or removed; and in response to determining that the alternative preview image is to be displayed, generating for display, using the control circuitry, the alternative preview image in place of the at least one preview image.
Regarding claim 22, the patent application claim 1 recites the limitation of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the patent application claim 3 recites the limitation of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the patent application claim 9 recites the limitation of claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, the patent application claim 5 recites the limitation of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, the patent application claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, the patent application claim 7 recites the limitation of claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, the patent application claim 21 recites the limitation of claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, the patent application claim 1 recites the limitation of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, the patent application claim 3 recites the limitation of claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, the patent application claim 9 recites the limitation of claim 36.
Regarding claim 38, the patent application claim 5 recites the limitation of claim 38.
Regarding claim 39, the patent application claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, the patent application claim 7 recites the limitation of claim 40.
Regarding claims 41-42, the patent application claim 1 recites the limitation of claims 41-42.
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 HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 February 13, 2026