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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-12, 15-19 and 22-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1, 6, 10-12, 18, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter ‘Li’, Pub. No. 2021/0051355) in view of Ingah et al. (hereinafter ‘Ingah’, Pub. No. 2018/0095656).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-12, Li teaches electronic device (mobile device 1800, Fig. 18; [0117]) (with corresponding method, computer-readable storage medium and/or computer program product) comprising:
at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions (1802, 1804, Fig. 18); and
the at least one processor executes the computer-executable instructions stored on the memory ([0117]; [0118]), causing the electronic device to:
receive a video stream of a live stream ([0011]; [0050]; [0064]) and determining a video size of the video stream ([0080]; [0095]; [0124]);
detect a direction of rotation of the terminal device ([0066]; [0075]; [0080]; [0081]); and
determine a playing size of the video stream on the display screen according to the video size of the video stream and the direction of rotation, and play the video stream in the playing size (Fig. 6, [0081]-[0095]; where the displayed video is displayed inscribed in an oval and scaling the video to maintain a good viewing experience. This is performed to any type of received video).
On the other hand, although Li teaches rotating the orientation of the playing screen, Li does not explicitly teach
wherein the display screen is a touch display screen, and the electronic device is further caused to: switch the live stream in response to a sliding operation that is applied to the touch display screen and corresponds to the direction of rotation of the terminal device.
However, in an analogous art, Ingah teaches a content streaming receiving device for playback, for implementing content navigation or selection using touch-based input (Abstract; [0038]). The user can slide his/her finger on the touch screen and content can be switched to a second content (Figs. 3A and 3B; [0038]; [0071]-[0073]; [0079]-[0081]). The system takes into account the current orientation of the device for implementing the sliding operation for changing the content (Figs. 3A and 3B; [0071]-[0073]; [0079]-[0081]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li’s invention with Ingah’s feature of switch the live stream in response to a sliding operation that is applied to the touch display screen and corresponds to the direction of rotation of the terminal device benefit of switching content respecting the playback orientation for an intuitive interface.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Li and Ingah teach wherein the detecting a direction of rotation of the terminal device comprises:
obtaining gravity sensing information collected by a gravity detection unit of the terminal device; and determining the direction of rotation according to the gravity sensing information (Li: [0066]).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Li and Ingah teach
wherein the video size comprises a video length-width ratio of a video to be played corresponding to the video stream; and the determining a playing size of the video stream on the display screen according to the video size of the video stream (Li: [0080]-[0095]) and the direction of rotation comprises:
determining a maximum display length and a maximum display width of the display screen according to the direction of rotation (Li: [0080]; [0095]-[0100]); and
determining the playing size according to the video length-width ratio of the video to be played and the maximum display length and the maximum display width of the display screen (Li: [0095]-[0100]).
Claim(s) 3, 15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter ‘Li’, Pub. No. 2021/0051355) in view of Ingah et al. (hereinafter ‘Ingah’, Pub. No. 2018/0095656) in further view of Zhou (Pub. No. 2017/0164024).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 22, Li and Ingah teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach
wherein the display screen has a maximum display area, a long edge size of the maximum display area is a first length, and a short edge size of the maximum display area is a second length; and the determining a maximum display length and a maximum display width of the display screen according to the direction of rotation comprises:
when the direction of rotation is a first direction, determining the maximum display length as the first length and the maximum display width as the second length, wherein the first direction corresponds to a direction of the terminal device placed in landscape mode; and
when the direction of rotation is a second direction, determining the maximum display length as the second length and the maximum display width as the first length, wherein the second direction corresponds to a direction of the terminal device placed in portrait mode.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou teaches a system that allows rotation of the content being watched when the mobile terminal is rotated in different rotations based on gravity sensor detection. The playing video is scaled depending on the orientation of the screen. The video on the screen varies depending on the orientation of the screen, if rotated to landscape, the max length is the width ; and in portrait orientation, the max length of the video now corresponds to the height (Tables 1 and 2; [0046]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Ingah’s invention with Zhou’s feature of depending of the rotation/orientation the max length changes/alternates to be longest side of the playing video for the benefit of maximizing the viewing experience.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter ‘Li’, Pub. No. 2021/0051355) in view of Ingah et al. (hereinafter ‘Ingah’, Pub. No. 2018/0095656) in further view of Tabak et al. (hereinafter ‘Tabak’, Pub. No. 2014/0118597).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Li and Ingah teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach further comprising: determining whether the gravity detection unit of the terminal device is enabled, and if the gravity detection unit is not enabled, providing prompt information.
However, in an analogous art, Tabak teaches a system that includes a position detector sensor that indicates the device is at a given position ([0034]-[0040]). When the device is not moved to a predefined position for a given function (recording/playback) ([0049]), the device prompts the user to rotate it to such position. If it placed on that position/orientation, the device function is performed (Fig. 4; [0056]-[0059]). For the device to detect the different positions/orientations, the device needs to have been enabled/programmed to do so (Fig. 3C; [0051]-[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Ingah’s invention with Tabak’s feature of prompting the user to rotate the device when no rotation or position is not detected/enabled for the benefit of allowing the user to remember previous settings for playback and optimizing playback.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights