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 .
This non final rejection is in response the amendment filed on 02/19/2026 (that was in response to the requirement for restriction on: 11/19/2025). The applicant has elected claims 5-15 and cancelled claims 1-4 and 16-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 11/01/2023 are accepted.
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 5-15 are 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.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites “presenting in the user interface a second segment containing an event list identifying events that are consistent with the selected grouping”. This recited limitation includes a subjective phrase of “consistent with” and the specification does not define ‘consistent’. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret ‘consistent with’ as related to the selected grouping. The examiner recommends the applicant consider clarifying the claim language to require a more objective test for what is considered ‘consistent’.
With regards to claims 6-15, since they do not resolve the deficiencies of claim 5, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allaire et al (US Application: US 2007/0038931, published: Feb. 15, 2007, filed: Aug. 12, 2005).
With regards to claim 5. (Original) Allaire et al teaches a method for creating documents comprising:
a) establishing a template defining a first template content box and a first template data box (paragraphs 0007, 0035: templates are established for use by publishers, the templates including content areas (interpreted as ‘boxes’) and template data such as text and layout/arrangements);
b) presenting a user interface to create a new document based on the template (Fig. 15, paragraphs 0035 and 0049: a user interface is displayed to create a media page);
c) presenting in the user interface a first segment containing a selection list for a video accumulator, the video accumulator comprising a remote video server providing access to a plurality of video files associated with events, the events being associated with a plurality of data elements (paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0036, 0038, Fig. 11: content items stored on a server and the publisher selects content items (videos) from an interface list. These content items are associated with data elements such as metadata and/or category elements);
d) presenting, in the first segment, groupings based on the plurality of data elements (paragraph 0174, 0182: groupings of videos based upon lineups and their respective data are presented. );
e) receiving a group selection of a selected grouping in the first segment (paragraph 0200: a lineup can be selected for a particular segment/location in the template );
f) presenting in the user interface a second segment containing an event list identifying events that are consistent with the selected grouping (paragraph 0202: an additional lineup can be selected for another portion/location in the template, the second segment being also a lineup (consistent line type grouping));
g) receiving an event selection of a selected event in the second segment (paragraph 0202: the publisher can configure/select the second lineup for a second location in the template (the selection being considered as a selection-event));
h) identifying a first video file for the selected event (paragraph 0200-0202: lineups are associated with their own video file(s));
i) identifying a first data element for the selected event (paragraph 0202: a description or thumbnail is a type of data element for the selection ); and
j) creating a new page for the new document, the new page having a first page content box based on the first template content box and a first page data box based on the first template data box, the first page content box containing the first video file and the first page data box containing the first data element (paragraph 0206, Fig. 23: a page is created having the publisher’s selections/configurations/content items based on the template, and the page contains content areas (such as a content box for either a player or one or more individual line up(s), and the description(s) can be supplied with the lineup(s)).
With regards to claim 6. (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein Allaire et al teaches the first video file is selected from among the plurality of video files (paragraph 0172, paragraphs 0200-0202: lineups include one or more video files (such as the claimed ‘the first video file’)).
With regards to claim 7. (Original) The method of claim 6, Allaire et al teaches wherein the template associates the first template content box with a first video type and wherein the first video file is associated with the first video type (Fig. 23: the template includes one or more content boxes/areas, for which at least one of the content box/areas with description has an associated lineup (media lineup of one or more media of video-type)).
With regards to claim 8. (Original) The method of claim 7, Allaire et al teaches wherein the template defines a second template content box associated with a second video type, wherein a second video associated with the second video type is identified for the selected event from among the plurality of video files, and wherein the new page has a second page content box based on the second template content box that contains the second video (Fig. 23: the template includes one or more content boxes, for which at least another one of the content areas can have associated description and associated second lineup (media lineup of one or more video type(s)).
With regards to claim 9. (Original) The method of claim 8, Allaire et al teaches wherein the template associates the first template data box with a first data type, wherein the first data element is associated with the first data type, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally Allaire et al teaches wherein the first data element is retrieved from a data accumulator accessed from a remote data server separate from the remote video server (paragraph 0068: a CDN/remote-data-server is interchangeably used to provide data (such as the first data element) )
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al (US Application: US 2007/0038931, published: Feb. 15, 2007, filed: Aug. 12, 2005) in view of Hurst-Hiller et al (US Application: US 2007/0016575, published: Jan. 18, 2007, filed: Dec. 14, 2005).
With regards to claim 10. (Original) The method of claim 9, Allaire et al teaches wherein the template defines a second template data box associated with a second data type, wherein a second data element associated with the second data type is identified for the selected event, … and wherein the new page has a second page data box based on second template data box that contains the second data element, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Allaire et al does not teach wherein the second data element is not stored on the remote data server, … .
Yet Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the second data element is not stored on the remote data server, … .(Fig. 7: data searched and result-filtered (based on criteria/data-element(s)) include local content data and remote data hosted by a server/site, such that relevant subsets of data are displayed in response to user data element criteria (as is known broader data element set (search criteria) would result in larger relevant subset in contrast to narrower data element criteria)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Allaire et al’s ability to allow a user to browse/search for source video-file-content and allow user selection from an interactive listing, such that searching could have been modified to not just display the source data from a remote server content, but also local source content in response to user specified filter criteria (additional data element(s)), as taught by Hurst-Hiller et al. The combination would have allowed Allaire et al to have efficiently searched data objects from internet services and the client computer and other local storage without having to run separate searches (Hurst-Hiller et al, paragraph 0008).
With regards to claim 11. (Original) The method of claim 5, the combination of Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the first video file is selected from among local files not stored among the plurality of video files accessed by the remote video server, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10 (as explained Allaire et al’s ability to search for source content (video files) in an interface, was modified was modified with Hurst-Hiller et al’s teachings, such that the searching would have also included local files), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. (Original) The method of claim 11, the combination of Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the first video file is identified by:i) identifying a set of data elements associated with the selected event,ii) searching the local files based on the set of data elements to identify a relevant subset of local files, iii) presenting in the user interface the relevant subset of local files, andiv) receiving through the user interface a selection of the first video file from the relevant subset of local files , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10 (as explained Allaire et al’s ability to allow a user to search and selecting a source content (first-video file) from an interface, was modified with Hurst-Hiller et al’s teachings, such that the searching would have also included relevant local files), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. (Original) The method of claim 12, the combination of Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the set of data elements is identified by presenting in the user interface a larger list of data elements associated with the selected event and receiving selection of a subset of the larger list of data elements , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10 (as explained Allaire et al’s ability to allow a user to search and selecting a source content (first-video file) from an interface, was modified with Hurst-Hiller et al’s teachings, such that the searching would have also included relevant local files (and a larger list should the data elements be changed to a broader/less restricted set of data elements)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al (US Application: US 2007/0038931, published: Feb. 15, 2007, filed: Aug. 12, 2005) in view of Hurst-Hiller et al (US Application: US 2007/0016575, published: Jan. 18, 2007, filed: Dec. 14, 2005) in view of Dombrowski et al (US Application: US 20130124461, published: May 16, 2013, filed: Nov 14, 2011).
With regards to claim 14. (Original) The method of claim 13, Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the event list is presented , … wherein a user can select … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 13, and is rejected under similar rationale
However Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al does not expressly teach the event list is presented in a plurality of displayed columns, with each column displaying data associated with a particular data element, further wherein a user can select the plurality of displayed columns.
Yet Dombrowski et al teaches the event list is presented in a plurality of displayed columns, with each column displaying data associated with a particular data element, further wherein a user can select the plurality of displayed columns (Fig. 8A: media having particular characteristics/categories/events are arranged in column format for user viewing of data elements within columns for column-data-item selection ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al’s ability to render and arrange a result-listing of data , such that the result data is arranged categorically as taught by Dombrowski et al. The combination would have allowed a user to easily and efficiently identify results.
With regards to claim 15. (Original) The method of claim 14, the combination of Allaire et al and Hurst-Hiller et al teaches wherein the larger list of data elements, as previously addressed in the rejection of claim 13, and is rejected under similar rationale.
As previously explained in the rejection of claim 14, the prior combination of Allaire et al, Hurst-Hiller et al and Dombrowski et al has already addressed the … list of data elements, the data elements comprises the particular data elements associated with the plurality of displayed columns. The citation from claim 14 from Dombrowski et al is repeated here for convenience: (Fig. 8A: media having particular characteristics/categories/events are arranged in column format for user viewing of data elements within columns for column-data-item selection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ubillos et al (US Application: US 2012/0096356): This reference teaches using a template and allowing a user to place/assign video clips to segments.
Becher-Wikes et al (US Application: US 2004/0010630): This reference teaches delivering information using a template having different parts/section.
Gordon et al (US Application: US 2022/0182699): This reference teaches aggregation and presentation of video content items with feed item customization.
Shpalter et al (US Application: US 2017/0168697): This reference teaches arranging chapter events in tabbed column format such that each of the column headers are selectable for media access/selection.
Johnson et al (US Application: US 20080304807): This reference teaches assembling video content through an interface that provides ability to organize and view video segment content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights