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 .
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, 4, 7, 9, 19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al (US 6,580,870) in view of O’Neill et al (US 10219027).
For claim 1, Kanazawa et al teach a method of processing videos, comprising:
displaying a video presentation interface, the video presentation interface configured to present a video in a media stream (e.g. figures 19A-B, column 15, lines 34-45, 55-60: dvd video);
receiving an interactive operation performed on the video (e.g. figure 19, column 16, lines 15-40: “Web button” is pressed”);
entering a material presentation page of the video in response to the interactive operation on the video (e.g. figures 19A-B, column 16, lines 15-40, www browser 117), wherein the material presentation page comprises a playback area of playing the video (e.g. figures 19A-B has a DVD video playback area and a browser display area); and
presenting at least one material presentation area on the material presentation page, the at least one material presentation area comprising related information of a plurality of first media materials that form the video (e.g. figure 19B: the browser content about the car).
Kanazawa et al do not further disclose presenting, in the at least one material presentation area, a plurality of first controls, each of the plurality of first controls corresponding to one of the plurality of first media materials. O’Neil et al teach presenting, in the at least one material presentation area, a plurality of first controls, each of the plurality of first controls corresponding to one of the plurality of first media materials. (e.g. figure 4: video content list 406, column 4, lines 55-61: video content list 406 is a list of video content (e.g., music videos) related to whoever is the selected artist. Thus, when the selected artist is changed, list 406 will also change as list 406 display a list of videos related to the selected artist. User 102 can select to watch on demand any of the videos included in list 406.). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of O’Neil et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system .
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above, wherein figure 17 shows CPU 11 and MEM 12.
For claims 4 and 21, Kanazawa et al do not further disclose in response to receiving an interactive operation on a target first control among the plurality of first controls, switching a playback progress in the playback area of the material presentation page to a first media material corresponding to the target first control. O’Neill et al teach in response to receiving an interactive operation on a target first control among the plurality of first controls, switching a playback progress in the playback area of the material presentation page to a first media material corresponding to the target first control (e.g. figure 4, column 7, lines 16-35: user selects video in video list 406 and the video is played in 402). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of O’Neil et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system .
For claims 7 and 22, Kanazawa et al do not further disclose in response to determining that the video is played back to a current first media material in the playback area of the material presentation page, indicating a first control corresponding to the current first media material in a specified manner. O’Neill et al teach in response to determining that the video is played back to a current first media material in the playback area of the material presentation page, indicating a first control corresponding to the current first media material in a specified manner (e.g. figure 8, “Talor Swift- ‘Style’” in both 402 and 806). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of O’Neil et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system .
For claim 9, Kanazawa et al teach presenting, on any first control among the plurality of first controls, related information of a first media material among the plurality of first media materials corresponding to the any first control (e.g. figure 19B: the browser content about the car).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 19, 21-22 above, and further in view of Han et al (US 8739073).
For claim 3, Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al do not further disclose displaying the plurality of first controls in an order in which the plurality of first media materials are played back in the video. Han et al teach displaying the plurality of first controls in an order in which the plurality of first media materials are played back in the video (e.g. figure 7: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Han et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size (e.g. Han et al, column 5 lines 37-50) to improve the display efficiency of the system.
Claims 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 19, 21-22 above, and further in view of Shorman et al (US 2017/0286423).
For claim 10, Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al do not further disclose entering a material upload page in response to selecting a material upload function on the material presentation page, wherein the material upload page comprises at least one second media material; and generating a to-be-released video in response to detecting a selection of the at least one second media material via the material upload page, wherein the to-be-released video comprises the at least one second media material. Shorman et al teach entering a material upload page in response to selecting a material upload function on the material presentation page, wherein the material upload page comprises at least one second media material; and generating a to-be-released video in response to detecting a selection of the at least one second media material via the material upload page, wherein the to-be-released video comprises the at least one second media material (e.g. figure 5: Upload from camera roll and figure 6, a list of videos can be selected for upload). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Shorman et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
For claim 11, Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al do not further disclose entering the material upload page in response to selecting the material upload function via a first control corresponding to one of the plurality of first media materials. Shorman et al teach entering the material upload page in response to selecting the material upload function via a first control corresponding to one of the plurality of first media materials. (e.g. figure 5: Upload from camera roll and figure 6, a list of videos can be selected for upload). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Shorman et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
For claim 13, Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al do not further disclose wherein the at least one second media material comprises a plurality of second media materials, and wherein the method further comprises: entering the material upload page in response to selecting, on the material presentation page, the material upload function via a third control; and generating the to-be-released video based on a selection order of selecting at least a subset of the plurality of second media materials. Shorman et al teach wherein the at least one second media material comprises a plurality of second media materials, and wherein the method further comprises: entering the material upload page in response to selecting, on the material presentation page, the material upload function via a third control; and generating the to-be-released video based on a selection order of selecting at least a subset of the plurality of second media materials (e.g. figure 5: Upload from camera roll and figure 6, a list of videos can be selected for upload). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Shorman et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al, O’Neill et al and Shorman et al, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10-11, 19, 21-22 above, and further in view of Ohm et al (US 2017/0300754).
For claim 12, Kanazawa et al, O’Neill et al and Shorman et al do not further disclose the material upload page comprises a second control corresponding to the first control, and wherein the method further comprises: positioning a cursor on the second control corresponding to the first control in response to selecting the material upload function via the first control. Ohm et al teach the material upload page comprises a second control corresponding to the first control, and wherein the method further comprises: positioning a cursor on the second control corresponding to the first control in response to selecting the material upload function via the first control (e.g. figure 5, media upload 532: Drop Files Here”, paragraph 31. “a mouse”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Ohm et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al, O’Neill et al and Shorman et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
For claim 14, Kanazawa et al, O’Neill et al and Shorman et al do not further disclose wherein the material upload page comprises a plurality of second controls corresponding to the plurality of first media materials, and the method further comprises: moving a cursor onto a second control corresponding to a current first media material. Ohm et al teach wherein the material upload page comprises a plurality of second controls corresponding to the plurality of first media materials, and the method further comprises: moving a cursor onto a second control corresponding to a current first media material. (e.g. figure 5, media upload 532: Drop Files Here”, paragraph 31. “a mouse”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Ohm et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al, O’Neill et al and Shorman et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 19, 21-22 above, and further in view of Ohm et al (US 2017/0300754).
For claim 8, Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al do not further disclose the indicating a first control corresponding to the current first media material in a specified manner further comprises: positioning a cursor onto the first control corresponding to the current first media material. Ohm et al teach the indicating a first control corresponding to the current first media material in a specified manner further comprises: positioning a cursor onto the first control corresponding to the current first media material. (e.g. figure 5, media upload 532: Drop Files Here”, paragraph 31. “a mouse”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the teaching of Ohm et al into the teaching of Kanazawa et al and O’Neill et al to display additional content previously would not fit on the screen based on the content representation size to improve the display efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 15-18 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1119. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur: 7:00 am-5:00 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, Thai Tran can be reached on 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.
Email: daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
Phone: (571)270-1119
/DAQUAN ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484