DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is in response to communications filed 4/30/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-21 and 23 are amended. Claims 11, 13, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Although new grounds of rejection are presented, a response is still considered necessary to several of applicants’ arguments.
In response to Applicants’ arguments on pages 12-13 that “In amended claim 1, the playing area of the player includes: an information prompt area for displaying prompt information, and an object prompt area where the prompt object is located, with a prompt line segment displayed between the two. Here, when the video plays to a key frame, the display of prompt information is triggered.
However, in the configuration of Spitz, based on the recognition of the video content's description (i.e., the features of the entire video, rather than a specific frame within the video), supplemental content is displayed in association with the video content. The supplemental content 310 persists throughout video playback, allowing users to interact with it at any time, rather than being displayed in response to the appearance of a specific frame.
By comparing the two, it can be seen that Spitz teaches away from the technical solution of amended claim 1 by always displaying supplemental content, and fails to disclose the existence of a "prompt line segment” and that “Regarding the above distinguishing technical features, although Jo discloses the "key frame" of a video, its specification, Par. [0055], explicitly states, "This permits an annotation to exist in every frame, instead of merely key frames."
It can be seen from this that Jo also clearly teaches away, namely because annotations (as additional information related to the video) are added to each frame of the
video, rather than just to key frames. Therefore, in the configuration of Jo, there is also no condition where the display of prompt information is triggered when the video plays to a key frame”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicants should please note that while Spitz does not specifically teach key frames, he does teach that “In particular configurations, the supplemental content is independent of the base content and is bound dynamically as the base content is displayed”, at least at [0051]. This means that when a frame is displayed and there is determined to be corresponding supplemental information for that frame, that corresponding supplemental content is displayed. This includes key frames. Furthermore, Jo teaches the displaying of information for frames, including key frames.
The Examiner notes that the Applicants’ limitations, as claimed, simply requires a display of first information corresponding to a key frame, when that key frame is played by the player. The fact that this process also occurs for frames other than key frames in Spitz in view of Jo in no way teaches away from the process occurring for key frames, which is all that is required by the claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (of record) in view of Jo (of record) and Kido (US20010001858, hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14, Spitz discloses an information processing method, comprising:
determining a frame in a first video corresponding to a player (see Spitz, at least at [0044], [0046]-[0048], [0052]-[0053], [0058], Figs. 3, and other related text);
acquiring first prompt information of a prompt object in the frame (see Spitz, at least at [0051], [0058], Figs. 3, and other related text);
determining, based on a playing area of the player, an information prompt area of the prompt object (see Spitz, at least at [0054], and other related text); and
in response to the player playing the first video to the frame, displaying the first prompt information in the information prompt area (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], [0054], [0063], Figs. 3, and other related text).
Spitz does not specifically disclose determining a key frame in a first video corresponding to a player; or
marking, in the playing area of the player, an object prompt area in which the prompt object is located; and
displaying a prompt line segment between the information prompt area and the object prompt area.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, Jo discloses determining a key frame in a first video corresponding to a player (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text);
acquiring first prompt information of a prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text);
displaying the first prompt information in an information prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text); and
marking, in a playing area of the player, an object prompt area in which the prompt object is located (see Jo, at least at Fig. 7, and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz to include the limitations as taught by Jo for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Spitz in view of Jo discloses the information prompt area and the object prompt area, but does not specifically disclose displaying a prompt line segment between the information prompt area and the object prompt area.
In an analogous art relating to a system for displaying information, Kido discloses displaying a prompt line segment between an information prompt area and an object prompt area (see Kido, at least at [0018], claim 7, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Spitz in view of Jo to include the limitations as taught by Kido for the advantage of allowing a user to more easily recognize corresponding information.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses detecting a playing request initiated by a first user for the first video (see Spitz, at least at [0052], [0054], and other related text);
starting the player for the first user in response to the playing request (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], and other related text, and see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 16, lines 59-64, and other related text); and
acquiring, from a video server, the first video corresponding to the player, wherein the first video is uploaded to the video server by a second user terminal of a second user (see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 4, lines 1-18, col 16, lines 59-64, col 17, lines 57-67, and other related text).
Regarding claims 7, 19, and 22, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses wherein determining the information prompt area of the prompt object based on the playing area of the player comprises:
determining the information prompt area of the prompt object at a predetermined position of the playing area of the player according to a predetermined shape and size (see spitz, at least at [0054], [0069], Figs. 3, and other related text).
Regarding claim 8, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses determining an object prompt area of the prompt object in the playing area of the player (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text); and in response to the player playing the first video to the key frame, displaying the first prompt information in the information prompt area, comprises:
in response to the player playing the first video to the key frame, displaying the object prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text), and displaying the first prompt information in the information prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (of record) in view of Jo (of record) and Kido (previously cited), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of McIntire (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses wherein acquiring the first prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises:
identifying the prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0044]-[0045], and other related text); and
acquiring the first prompt information (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], and related text, and see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 10, lines 28-38, and other related text, and see Jo, at least at [0047]-[0048], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose the first prompt information being preset by the second user for the prompt object, wherein the first prompt information is provided in response to the second user uploading the first video by means of the second user terminal.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, McIntire discloses first prompt information being preset by a second user for a prompt object (see McIntire, at least at [0070], [0076], and other related text), wherein the first prompt information is provided when the second user uploads the first video by means of the second user terminal (see McIntire, at least at [0157]-[0158], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo and Kido to include the limitations as taught by McIntire for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Regarding claim 4, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido, and further in view of McIntire discloses
determining an interaction displaying area based on the position of the information prompt area in the playing area of the player (see Spitz, at least at [0059], Fig. 3B, and related text);
acquiring interaction information corresponding to the interaction displaying area (see Spitz, at least at [0059], Fig. 3C, and other related text), wherein the interaction information is obtained by the input of the first user in the interaction displaying area of the first user terminal and/or by the input of the second user in the second user terminal for the interaction displaying area (i.e., user clicks the item, see Spitz, at least at [0059], and other related text); and
in response to the player playing the first video to the key frame, displaying the first prompt information in the information prompt area, comprises:
in response to the player playing the first video to the key frame, displaying the first prompt information in the information prompt area, and displaying the interaction information in the interaction displaying area (see Spitz, at least at Fig. 3B, and other related text).
Claims 5, 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (of record) in view of Jo (of record) and Kido (previously cited), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Lemmons (of record).
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 20, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses wherein acquiring the first prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises:
identifying the prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0045], [0051]-[0052], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose searching, from a plurality of candidate objects of an object database, for a first object matching the prompt object, wherein the plurality of candidate objects respectively correspond to object prompt information; and determining the object prompt information of the first object to be the first prompt information of the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, Lemmons discloses identifying a prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0031]-[0033], [0070]-[0072], and other related text);
searching, from a plurality of candidate objects of an object database (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], Fig. 3B, and other related text), for a first object matching the prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], Fig. 3B, and other related text),
wherein the plurality of candidate objects respectively correspond to object prompt information (see Lemmons, at least at [0031]-[0033], [0070]-[0072], and other related text); and
determining the object prompt information of the first object to be the first prompt information of the prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0049], [0074]-[0075], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo and Kido to include the limitations as taught by Lemmons for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Regarding claim 9, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido, and further in view of Lemmons discloses acquiring the prompt object set by a third user for the first video (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], [0070]-[0072], [0074]-[0075], Fig. 3B, and other related text); and
determining the key frame in the first video corresponding to the player comprises:
determining a plurality of image frames in the first video corresponding to the player (see Jo, at least at [0055], and other related text); and
identifying, from the plurality of image frames, the key frame containing the prompt object (see Jo, at least at [0055], and other related text).
Claims 6, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (of record) in view of Jo (of record) and Kido (previously cited), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Moore (of record).
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 21, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses wherein acquiring the first prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises receiving the first prompt information sent by the server (see Spitz, at least at [0061]-[0067], but does not specifically disclose sending the key frame to a server, extracting, by the server, object information of the prompt object in the key frame, and searching for the first prompt information matching the object information.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing information and content, Moore discloses sending a key frame (see Moore, at least at [0016]-[0017], [0020], [0067]-[0068], [0074], and other related text) to a server (see Moore, at least at [0080]-[0081], and other related text), extracting, by the server, object information of the prompt object in the key frame (see Moore, at least at [0016]-[0017], [0020], [0067]-[0068], [0074], [0080]-[0081], [0091], and other related text), and searching for the first prompt information matching the object information (see Moore, at least at [0080]-[0081], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo and Kido to include the limitations as taught by Moore for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (of record) in view of Jo (of record) and Kido (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhang (of record) and Rav-Acha (of record).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Spitz in view of Jo and Kido discloses determining the key frame in the first video corresponding to the player, but does not specifically disclose wherein determining the key frame in the first video corresponding to the player comprises:
extracting, from the first video corresponding to the player and as the key frame, an image frame where an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value is located; and the method further comprises:
determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for determining meaningful content, Zhang discloses extracting, from first video and as a key frame, an image frame where a meaningful object is located (see Zhang, at least at [0018], [0045], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo and Kido to include the limitations as taught by Zhang for the advantage of more robustly determining important information.
Spitz in view of Jo and Kido, and further in view Zhang does not specifically disclose an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value, and determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for determining meaningful occurrences, Rav-Acha discloses an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value (see Rav-Acha, at least at [0014], [0063], [0088], and other related text), and determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be a prompt object (see Rav-Acha, at least at [0014], [0063], [0088], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo and Kido, and further in view of Zhang to include the limitations as taught by Rav-Acha for the advantage of more robustly determining important information.
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 CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights