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 action is responsive to the amendment file on 8/13/2025 to the Application filed on 9/19/2023.
This application is a continuation of PCT international application Ser. No. PCT/CN2022;086737 filed on 4/14/2022 and claims the benefit of priority from Chinese Patent Application No. 202110451943 filed on 4/26/2021.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Demerchant, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170230712, filed on 2/10/2016 (hereinafter Demerchant).
As for independent claim 1, Demerchant discloses device and method for displaying a multimedia content, comprising:
displaying a pop-up window for a display mode on a user interface before the display mode is enabled,
(Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying a pop-up window 308 on user interface such that user can select a display mode as shown in fig. 3A)
wherein the pop-up window for the display mode displays at least one content classification control in the display mode, and the content classification control has a correspondence with a multimedia content classification
(Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0052], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying content classification control, the kid-safe mode 310b, corresponding to multimedia content classification, content items classified as appropriate to view by a child to view determined such as first content items 322 as shown in fig. 3B)
receiving a trigger operation for a target content classification control in the at least one content classification control; and in response to receiving the trigger operation for the target content classification control, enabling the display mode; and
(Demerchant paragraph [0012]-[0015], [0030], [0051]-[0052], [0070]-[0073] discloses electronic device 102 such as TV can receive voice, gesture, or touch input operation for selection of kid-safe mode classifications that enables selection of kid-safe mode)
displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification corresponding to the target content classification control in the display mode on the user interface,
(Demerchant paragraph [0034], [0051], [0052], [0054], [0057], [0074]-[0078] discloses displaying first set of content items 322 determined to be suitable for view by child user 316 corresponding to the selected classification kid-safe mode 310b)
such that both enabling the display mode and displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification in the display mode are implemented by the trigger operation on the target content classification control
(Demerchant paragraph [0015], [0030], [0034], [0051]-[0054], [0057], [0074]-[0078] discloses trigger operation, user’s voice, gesture or touch input on remote control 108, sets the viewing mode to for example kid-safe mode and displays contents classified in kid-safe mode, items that may be appropriate for a child to view).
As for claim 10, claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 11, claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 12-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demerchant in view of Boro et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080307339, filed on 2/25/2008 (hereinafter Boro).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Boro discloses device and method comprising
playing a multimedia content belonging to the multimedia content classification, in response to a trigger operation of switching from a current page to a preset multimedia content display page
(Boro paragraph [0250]-[0254] discloses playing a multimedia content in the classification when switching from a current page to a preset multimedia content display page, switching to displaying USA Hockey approved web page shown in fig. 25 when user select item in in fig. 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro with Demerchant for the benefit of having a system “with a graphical user interface designed to enable common tasks performed by kids, such as doing homework, playing games, and communicating with other kids”, (Boro [0009]).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
displaying the pop-up window for the display mode based on the window display information
(Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying a pop-up window 308 on user interface; Demerchant paragraph [0034], [0051], [0052], [0054], [0057], [0074]-[0078] discloses displaying multimedia content classification appropriate for a child in the selected kid-safe mode 310b).
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising obtaining window display information in response to a login operation for a target application. However, Boro discloses device and method wherein
before the displaying pop-up window for the display mode, the method further comprises: obtaining window display information in response to a login operation for a target application,
(Boro paragraph [0249]-[0250] discloses displaying window based on login, window for Blake is shown in fig. 22)
wherein the pop-up window display information comprises a content classification control corresponding to a currently logged-in user, and
(Boro paragraph [0249]-[0250] discloses displaying content classification controls "Sports", "Monkeys", "Soccer", "Sharks", "Hockey", "Science", "Alligators" and "Astronomy" for currently logged-in user, Blake, as shown in fig. 22)
wherein the displaying window comprises: displaying the display mode window based on the pop-up window display information
(Boro paragraph [0157], [0158], [0250]-[0251] discloses displaying the display mode window display mode for a particular child that has logged on, based on the window display information, user login, as shown in figs. 21 and 22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro with Demerchant for the benefit of having a “personal computing devices that are directed at children and that are associated with appropriate parental controls and oversight tools and techniques”, (Boro [0007]).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
displaying a pop-up window (Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying a pop-up window 308 on user interface).
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising the window display information comprises a content classification control determined based on the currently logged-in user. However, Boro discloses device and method wherein
the window display information comprises a content classification control determined based on the currently logged-in user
(Boro paragraph [0250] discloses display information comprises a content classification control based on logged-in user, controls "Sports", "Monkeys", "Soccer", "Sharks", "Hockey", "Science", "Alligators" and "Astronomy" for currently logged-in user, Blake, as shown in fig. 22).
Boro does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method wherein the pop-up window display information comprises a content classification control determined based on historical behavior data of the currently logged-in user. However, in another embodiment, Boro discloses device and method wherein
the window display information comprises a content determined based on historical behavior data of the currently logged-in user
(Boro paragraph [0169] discloses display information based on historical behavior data, content suggestions to the child based on the child's history of use).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro’s method wherein the window display information comprises a content determined based on historical behavior data of the currently logged-in user with Boro’s method wherein the window display information comprises a content classification control determined based on the currently logged-in user for a method wherein the window display information comprises a content classification control determined based on historical behavior data of the currently logged-in user with Demerchant. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able to tailor content specifically to a user.
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Boro discloses device and method wherein
a classification icon and a classification theme of the multimedia content classification corresponding to the content classification control are displayed on the content classification control
(Boro paragraph [0250]-[0254] discloses displaying icon, hockey puck, and classification theme, hocky, for classification control for hocky multimedia content classification, as shown in figs. 22-24)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro with Demerchant for the benefit of having being able to provide a visual information to a user.
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
displaying a pop-up window (Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying a pop-up window 308 on user interface).
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method wherein the window display information further comprises one or more of a descriptive text, an image, and an animation of the display mode. However, Boro discloses device and method wherein
the window display information further comprises one or more of a descriptive text, an image, and an animation of the display mode
(Boro paragraph [0157], [0158], [0250]-[0251] discloses displaying text and image in child mode as shown in figs. 22 and 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro with Demerchant for the benefit of having being able to provide a visual information to a user.
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method wherein
the display mode comprises one or more of a picture browsing mode, a specified content learning mode, and a youth display mode
(Demerchant paragraph [0051] discloses display mode maybe youth display mode, kid-safe mode)
Boro also discloses device and method wherein
the display mode comprises one or more of a picture browsing mode, a specified content learning mode, and a youth display mode
(Boro paragraph [0157], [0158], [0250]-[0251] discloses displaying window in child mode as shown in figs. 22 and 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boro with Demerchant for the benefit of having “systems [that] may be provided with parental controls, such as controls that control the content that children can access (whether on television, websites, games, or the like), [and] controls that restrict when children can access what content”, (Boro [0010]).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 9 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demerchant in view of in view of Boro in view of Jimenez, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140208268, filed on 1/21/2013 (hereinafter Jimenez) in view of Li, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140075316, filed on 9/11/2012 (hereinafter Li).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
displaying a pop-up window (Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying a pop-up window 308 on user interface).
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising receiving the pop-up window display information carrying the content classification control from the server, wherein the content classification control is determined by the server based on historical behavior data corresponding to the user identification. However, Jimenez discloses device and method comprising
determining a user identification of the currently logged-in user to a server,
(Jimenez paragraph [0022], [0059], [0063] discloses server determining user identification)
receiving the window display information carrying the content classification control from the server,
(Jimenez paragraph [0022], [0029], [0049]-[0050] discloses retrieving carrying the content classification control from the serve, server generates an initial interface for the user containing different categories of content)
wherein the content classification control is determined by the server based on historical behavior data corresponding to the user identification
(Jimenez paragraph [0022], [0029], [0049]-[0050] discloses content classification control, category, based on historical behavior data, historical browsing data for the particular user).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jimenez with Demerchant and Boro for the benefit of being able to have a system where the “content servers attempt to identify a limited number of digital content files that will be relevant to a particular user and present only this limited set of content files to the user”, (Jimenez [0006]) such that users are not overwhelmed with information.
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising sending a user identification of the currently logged-in user to a server, in response to receiving the login operation for the target application. However, Li discloses device and method comprising
sending a user identification of the currently logged-in user to a server, in response to receiving the login operation for the target application
(Li paragraph [0089] discloses sending a user identification of the currently logged-in user to a server when login is received, the user's login credentials are electrically sent to the remote server 420).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with Demerchant, Boro, and Jimenez for the benefit of being able to have “an intuitive, quick, and versatile way to manage his/her media content collection or to customize his/her media content collection according to his/her own preferences”, (Li [0014]).
As for claim 16, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demerchant in view of Ellingford et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210306711, filed on 3/23/2021 (hereinafter Ellingford).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
displaying the at least one content classification control on pop-up window for the display mode
(Demerchant paragraph [0051], [0054], [0070]-[0073] discloses displaying content classification control, the kid-safe mode 31, in pop-up window 308 as shown in fig. 3A)
Boro also discloses device and method comprising
displaying the at least one content classification control on the display mode window
(Boro paragraph [0250]-[0254] discloses displaying content classification control, content categories 2204 including "Sports", "Monkeys", "Soccer", "Sharks", "Hockey", "Science", "Alligators" and "Astronomy" in specified mode as shown in figs. 22-24).
Demerchant does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising
displaying the at least one content classification control in a slidable manner. However, Ellingford discloses device and method comprising
displaying the at least one icon in a slidable manner, in response to a preset sliding operation for the at least one icon on the display mode pop-up window
(Ellingford paragraph [0186] discloses displaying the at least one icon in a slidable manner in response to a preset sliding operation, icons are displayed based on slide operation as shown in fig. 6S and 6T).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ellingford with Demerchant and Boro for the benefit of being able to display additional information in a limited screen area by initially hiding the information.
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Rejections of claims 1-19 based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn based on applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues “Demerchant does not disclose in response to receiving the trigger operation for the target content classification control, enabling the display mode and displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification corresponding to the target content classification control in the display mode on the user interface,
such that both enabling the display mode and displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification in the display mode are implemented by the trigger operation on the target content classification control”, (Remarks pages 8 and 11) because “the interface of FIG. 3A only displays the viewing mode”.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111) and that 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)).
As stated in the rejection above, Demerchant discloses device and method comprising
in response to receiving the trigger operation for the target content classification control, enabling the display mode; and (“For example, when the kid-safe mode is selected, certain content items that may be appropriate for a child to view may be determined from among the plurality of content items.”, Demerchant [0052]; “Exemplary aspects of the disclosure may include receipt of an input by a television (TV), which may enable selection of a viewing mode on the TV.”, Dermerchant [0013]; “In accordance with an embodiment, the first set of content items may be determined based on a pre-defined rating of a TV show or channel, a first user-setting to enable and/or disable one or more TV channels in the viewing mode”, [0015]; “the parent user 318 may provide an input to select a viewing mode, such as the kid-safe mode 310b, on the TV 302. ”, Demerchant [0073])
displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification corresponding to the target content classification control in the specified display mode on the user interface (“With reference to FIG. 3A there is shown a television (TV) 302, a TV remote control 304, a TV display 306, a UI 308, one or more viewing modes 310, one or more content sources 312, one or more input mechanisms 314, a child user 316, and a parent user 318”, Demerchant [0070]; “The parent user 318 may want to ensure that the child user 316 views appropriate content on the TV 302. In operation, the parent user 318 may provide an input to select a viewing mode, such as the kid-safe mode 310b, on the TV 302. ”, Demerchant [0073]; “In accordance with an embodiment, in response to the selection of the kid-safe mode 310b, the TV 302 may be configured to determine the first set of content items 322, suitable for viewing by the child user 316. ”, Demerchant [0076]; “With reference to FIG. 3C there is shown a consolidated view 328, rendered on the TV display 306 of the TV 302, via the UI 308. The consolidated view 328, may provide options to a viewer, such as the child user 316, to choose and view the selected content item from the determined set of content items, such as the first set of content items 322”, Demerchant [0078])
such that both enabling the display mode and displaying a multimedia content in the multimedia content classification in the display mode are implemented by the trigger operation on the target content classification control
(“In operator, the processor 202 may be configured to receive an input that may enable selection of a viewing mode on the UI 212, rendered on the display 210 of the first electronic device 102. In accordance with an embodiment the input may be a voice, a gesture, and/or a touch input in accordance with an embodiment, the input may be a control signal, such as an infrared signal, received from the remote control 108.”, Dermerchant [0051]; “For example, when the kid-safe mode is selected, certain content items that may be appropriate for a child to view may be determined from among the plurality of content items.”, Demerchant [0052]; “Exemplary aspects of the disclosure may include receipt of an input by a television (TV), which may enable selection of a viewing mode on the TV.”, Dermerchant [0013]; “In accordance with an embodiment, the first set of content items may be determined based on a pre-defined rating of a TV show or channel, a first user-setting to enable and/or disable one or more TV channels in the viewing mode”, [0015]; “In operation, the first electronic device 102, such as a TV, may be configured to receive an input that may enable selection of a viewing mode on the first electronic device 102. In accordance with an embodiment, the input may be a voice, a gesture, and/or a touch input. In accordance with an embodiment, the input may be a control signal, such as an infrared signal, received from the remote control 108. In accordance with an embedment, the viewing mode may be a kid-safe mode, a family-safe mode, a teenager mode, an adult mode, and/or a user-defined mode.”, D [0030]; “The parent user 318 may want to ensure that the child user 316 views appropriate content on the TV 302. In operation, the parent user 318 may provide an input to select a viewing mode, such as the kid-safe mode 310b, on the TV 302. ”, Demerchant [0073]; “The parent user 318 may want to ensure that the child user 316 views appropriate content on the TV 302. In operation, the parent user 318 may provide an input to select a viewing mode, such as the kid-safe mode 310b, on the TV 302. ”, Demerchant [0073]).
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 JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights