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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024 the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 04/24/2024 are accepted.
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) 1, 2, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007).
With regards to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches a method for playing a video (Fig 3: a computer implemented method uses a processor and memory ), performed by an electronic device, and comprising:
playing, in response to a fast multiplied-speed playing operation performed on a playing interface of the video when the video is being played, the video according to a first multiplied playing speed which is associated with the fast multiplied-speed playing operation (Fig 4A, Fig 4B, paragraphs 0044 and 0046: the video can be in a play state ( interpreted as a 1X multiplied play speed) and based on user right-swipe-gesture, a fast multiplied speed operation is requested and applied); and
playing, in response to a multiplied-speed adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to a second multiplied playing speed which corresponds to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the second multiplied playing speed is different with the first multiplied playing speed (Fig 4A, Fig 4B, paragraphs 0044 and 0046: a second fast forward speed is applied to a video being played).
With regards to claim 2. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the multiplied-speed adjustment operation comprises at least one of: sliding towards a first direction, and sliding towards a second direction; wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction, and the first direction and the second direction respectively correspond to different multiplied playing speeds (Fig 6A and 6B, paragraph 0051: a right swipe gesture can be a first direction (forward multiplier), and a left-swipe gesture (opposite of a right-swipe gesture) is identified and a different negative multiplied speed (reverse/rewind) is applied) ).
With regards to claim 19, Rosenberg teaches an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises: one or more processors; and a memory, configured to store program codes executable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program codes to perform the following steps: playing, in response to a fast multiplied-speed playing operation performed on a playing interface of a video when the video is being played, the video according to a first multiplied playing speed which is associated with the fast multiplied-speed playing operation; and playing, in response to a multiplied-speed adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to a second multiplied playing speed which corresponds to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the second multiplied playing speed is different with the first multiplied playing speed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, Rosenberg teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program codes therein, wherein the program codes, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the following steps: playing, in response to a fast multiplied-speed playing operation performed on a playing interface of a video when the video is being played, the video according to a first multiplied playing speed which is associated with the fast multiplied-speed playing operation; and playing, in response to a multiplied-speed adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to a second multiplied playing speed which corresponds to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the second multiplied playing speed is different with the first multiplied playing speed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Li (US Application: US 20140258854, published: Sep. 11, 2014, filed: May 20, 2014) in view of Huang et al (US Patent: 9836204, issued: Dec. 5, 2017, filed: Feb. 24, 2017).
With regards to claim 3. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg does not expressly teach the multiplied-speed adjustment operation is an operation performed on a multiplied-speed adjustment track displayed on the playing interface, and the multiplied-speed adjustment track indicates a plurality of multiplied playing speeds.
Yet Li teaches the multiplied-speed adjustment operation is an operation performed on a multiplied-speed adjustment [control] displayed on the playing interface, and the multiplied-speed adjustment [control] indicates a plurality of multiplied playing speeds (Fig. 8 and 9, paragraphs 0053-0055: an interactive scroll bar that allows progress adjustment of video being currently played, can have its operation modified with a speed-toggle/control that can be further manipulated/slid to multiple different toggle positions. Each toggle position represents a multiplied playing speed and an upper and lower position of available positions of the toggle represents a upper and lower limit ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to allow a user to control speed of video playback, such that the control would have allowed manipulation of a tracked positioning of a video by allowing a user to manipulate a track to implement one or more desired multiplied speed adjustments for video playback, as taught by Li. The combination would have allowed implemented an enhanced media playback controls to the user (Li, paragraph 0007).
However although the combination teaches a multiplied-speed adjustment control used to make fine tune adjustments being implemented, the combination does not teach the type of control could be represented as a track.
Yet Huang et al teaches fine tune adjustment control in the form of a track (Fig. 9, column 5, lines 32-50: a track adjustment is displayed for a user to make fine tune adjustments based on user’s various sliding positions along a track).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg and Li’s ability to allow a user to make fine-tuned play back speed adjustments with a speed adjustment control, such that the adjustment control could have been represented in the form of a track, as taught by Huang et al. The combination would have allowed Rosenberg and Li to have enhanced usability and accuracy for a user, when the user is making adjustments.
With regards to claim 4. The method according to claim 3, the combination of Rosenberg, Li and Huang et al teaches wherein the multiplied-speed adjustment track comprises a plurality of multiplied-speed levels, different multiplied-speed levels respectively correspond to different multiplied playing speeds, and the multiplied-speed adjustment operation comprises at least one of: a triggering operation performed on the multiplied-speed levels; and sliding on the multiplied-speed adjustment track to reach one of the multiplied-speed levels, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method according to claim 3, the combination of Rosenberg, Li and Huang et al teaches wherein two ends of the multiplied-speed adjustment track respectively indicate an upper limit and a lower limit of adjustment of a multiplied playing speed; and the multiplied-speed adjustment operation comprises at least one of: a triggering operation performed on any position on the multiplied-speed adjustment track; and sliding on the multiplied-speed adjustment track to reach any position, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Li (US Application: US 20140258854, published: Sep. 11, 2014, filed: May 20, 2014).
With regards to claim 6. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the method further comprises: … the multiplied-speed adjustment operation … the second multiplied playing speed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg teaches identifying a multiplied-speed adjustment operation event from user input, Rosenberg does not expressly teach .. sending, in response to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, a vibration prompt according to a vibration level corresponding to the second multiplied playing speed.
Yet Li teaches .. sending, in response to [user adjustment operation event], a vibration prompt according to a vibration level corresponding to the [selected operation associated with the adjustment event] (paragraph 0084: a vibration amount/level is implemented to notify the user of an adjustment being selected based upon the user’s adjustment operation event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to identify and process a multiplied-speed adjustment operation event from a user, such that a haptic/vibration feedback can be provided based upon the execution of the operation event, as taught by Li. The combination would have allowed Rosenberg to have implemented enhanced media playback … functionalities for the user (Li, paragraph 0007).
With regards to claim 14. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the method further comprises: .. playing … when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg does not expressly teach playing, in response to a progress adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to both a playing progress corresponding to the progress adjustment operation and the first multiplied playing speed.
Yet Li teaches playing, in response to a progress adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to both a playing progress corresponding to the progress adjustment operation and the first multiplied playing speed (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9: a video can be played at regular 1X speed and the video can have its progress /position adjusted via triggering operation upon a control 130 on the progress bar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to allow a user to input operations to a video player , such that the input operations and video player would have further been modified to include processing positional/progress adjustments as well as allowing playback at regular and other multiplied speeds, as taught by Li. The combination would have allowed Rosenberg to have implemented enhanced media playback … functionalities for the user (Li, paragraph 0007).
With regards to claim 15. The method according to claim 14, Rosenberg and Li teaches the combination of Rosenberg and Li teaches wherein the progress adjustment operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally, Rosenberg teaches … comprises at least one of: sliding towards a third direction; and sliding towards a fourth direction on a target region of the playing interface, wherein the third direction is opposite to the fourth direction, and the third direction and the fourth direction respectively correspond to different adjustment directions of the playing progress (Fig 6A and 6B, paragraph 0051: a right swipe gesture can be a third direction (forward multiplier), and a left-swipe gesture can be interpreted as a fourth direction (opposite of a right-swipe gesture) is identified and a different negative multiplied speed (reverse/rewind) is applied). It is further noted that claim 15 does not depend upon claim 2 and thus, the ‘third’ and ‘fourth’ are interpreted as different labels , rather than a total number of available directions ).
With regards to claim 16. The method according to claim 14, Rosenberg and Li teaches wherein the progress adjustment operation comprises at least one of: a dragging operation performed on a playing progress bar of the video; and a triggering operation performed on any position on the playing progress bar (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, a user can perform a slide/drag operation on a control to trigger a positional/progress-position of video playback), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Olson (US Application: US 2018/0088896, published: Mar. 29, 2018, filed: Feb. 23, 2017).
With regards to claim 8. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein playing, in response to the fast multiplied-speed playing operation performed on the playing interface of the video when the video is being played, the video according to the first multiplied playing speed which is associated with the fast multiplied-speed playing operation, comprises: playing, in response to the fast multiplied-speed playing operation performed on a target region of the playing interface when the video is played, the video according to the first multiplied playing speed (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (and in paragraphs 0037, 0038 and 0046), a user can provide an input gesture on a screen display area (interpreted as a target region) to play at a desired 1X or other multiplied speed (such as fast forward)) , and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg does not expressly teach … … wherein the target region is on one of two sides of the playing interface.
Yet Olson teaches … wherein the target region is on one of two sides of the playing interface (Fig. 5T, paragraph 0196: a target region includes an area/region of 512a and 512c and the target region can be highlighted when the user taps it to reflect user operation of a region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to process user input operations associated with selecting fast multiplied speed(s) while media (video) is playing, such that the user input operations are further modified to be processed when present within specific regions (one of two sides of a player interface), as taught by Olson. The combination would have allowed Rosenberg to have allowed users to easily navigate media in a way that would reduce distraction(s) to their current activity (Olson, paragraph 0004).
With regards to claim 9. The method according to claim 8, the combination of Rosenberg and Olsen teaches wherein the method further comprises: highlighting the target region when the video is being played, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Angiolillo et al (US Application: US 2008/0107402, published: May 8, 2008, filed: Nov. 2, 2006).
With regards to claim 7. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the method further comprises at least one of: … the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed; … … the multiplied-speed adjustment operation .., as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg does not expressly teach displaying first prompt information when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, wherein the first prompt information indicates a current multiplied playing speed of the video; displaying second prompt information when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, wherein the second prompt information indicates an operation manner of the multiplied-speed adjustment operation; and displaying third prompt information in response to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the third prompt information indicates an operation process corresponding to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation.
Yet Angiolillo et al teaches displaying first prompt information when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, wherein the first prompt information indicates a current multiplied playing speed of the video; displaying second prompt information when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, wherein the second prompt information indicates an operation manner of the multiplied-speed adjustment operation; and displaying third prompt information in response to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the third prompt information indicates an operation process corresponding to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation (paragraph 0025, 0028, 0030, Fig. 5C: a plurality of current multiplied speeds (any one of a multiple/plurality of speeds) are supported with one or more user directional inputs and each of those speeds can be displayed/prompted to the user with a progress bar in a video player to inform the user of a selected multiplied speed. It is noted that the user is able to iterate through the available speeds and each of the speeds are displayed/prompted to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to allow a user to select/perform an operation for a desired multiplied speed via touch input selection, such that one or more of the user selections can be processed for a plurality of directions to toggle, play and display a desired multiplied speed, as taught by Angiolillo et al. The combination would have allowed Rosenberg to have allowed a user to make intuitive selections of playback controls with informative feedback (within a player interface)
With regards to claim 10. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg teaches wherein the fast multiplied-speed playing operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Rosenberg does not expressly teach the fast multiplied-speed playing operation comprises at least one of: a long-press operation; a shaking operation; and a voice input operation.
Yet Angiolillo et al teaches the fast multiplied-speed playing operation comprises at least one of: a long-press operation; a shaking operation; and a voice input operation (paragraph 0035: a user can trigger ( and sustain) a multiplied speed operation with a long press input and can return to regular normal speed video playback by releasing the input (exiting the operation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg’s ability to process user touch input for recognizing and performing a fast multiplied speed operation, such that the operation can be modified to be performed when the input is long-pressed, as taught by Angiolillo et al. The combination would have allowed a user to make intuitive selections of playback controls with informative feedback (within a player interface).
With regards to claim 11. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Rosenberg and Angiolillo et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: playing, in response to a multiplied-speed playing exiting operation performed on the playing interface, the video according to a default multiplied playing speed ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, the user can exit a multiplied speed operation after releasing input of long press and video returns to default play speed), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The method according to claim 11, the combination of Rosenberg and Angiolillo et al teaches wherein in a case that the fast multiplied-speed playing operation is a long-press operation, in a process of responding to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, a sustained response is made to the long-press operation; and the multiplied-speed playing exiting operation is a release operation corresponding to the long-press operation (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, Angiolillo et al explains in paragraph 0035 that a user can trigger ( and sustain) a multiplied speed operation with a long press input and can return to regular normal speed video playback by releasing the input (exiting the operation)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Rosenberg and Angiolillo et al teaches wherein the method further comprises at least one of: displaying, in response to a triggering operation performed on a playing progress bar of the video when the video is being played, fourth prompt information, wherein the fourth prompt information indicates to perform the fast multiplied-speed playing operation on the playing interface to play the video according to the first multiplied playing speed; and displaying fifth prompt information when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, wherein the fifth prompt information indicates an operation manner for adjusting a playing progress of the video (as explained in the rejection of claim 7, paragraph 0025, 0028, 0030, Fig. 5C of Angiolillo et al was explained to teach a plurality of current multiplied speeds (any configured integer-multiple of plurality of speeds) are supported with one or more user directional inputs and each of those speeds can be displayed/prompted to the user along with a progress bar in a video player, to inform the user of a selected multiplied speed. It is noted that the user is able to iterate through the available speeds and each of the speeds are displayed/prompted to the user), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Li (US Application: US 20140258854, published: Sep. 11, 2014, filed: May 20, 2014) in view of Angiolillo et al (US Application: US 2008/0107402, published: May 8, 2008, filed: Nov. 2, 2006).
With regards to claim 17. The method according to claim 14, the combination of Rosenberg and Li teaches wherein the method further comprises: playing, in response to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation performed on the playing interface when the video is being played according to both the playing progress corresponding to the progress adjustment operation and the first multiplied playing speed, the video … as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14 and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not teach playing … the video according to a third multiplied playing speed corresponding to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the third multiplied playing speed is different with the first multiplied playing speed.
However Angiolillo et al teaches … the video according to a third multiplied playing speed corresponding to the multiplied-speed adjustment operation, wherein the third multiplied playing speed is different with the first multiplied playing speed (paragraph 0025, 0028, 0030, Fig. 5C: a plurality of current multiplied speeds (any one of a multiple/plurality of speeds) are supported with one or more user directional inputs and each of those speeds can be displayed/prompted to the user with a progress bar in a video player to inform the user of a selected multiplied speed. It is noted that the user is able to iterate through the available speeds and each of the speeds are displayed/prompted to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg and Li’s ability to allow a user to make multiplied speed adjustment operations to a video that is being played according to a multiplied speed with a progress adjustment bar, such that a plurality of additional multiplied speeds are available for selection as a multiplied speed adjustment operation, as taught by Angiolillo et al. The combination would have allowed a user to select and flexibly apply granular speed multipliers from a larger amount of available speed multiplier options.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20080084400, published: Apr. 10, 2008, filed: Mar. 6, 2007) in view of Li (US Application: US 20140258854, published: Sep. 11, 2014, filed: May 20, 2014) in view of Angiolillo et al (US Application: US 2008/0107402, published: May 8, 2008, filed: Nov. 2, 2006) in view of Hosseinkhani Loorak et al (US Application: US 2022/0382377, published: Dec. 1, 2022, filed: May 28, 2021).
With regards to claim 18. The method according to claim 1, Rosenberg and Li teaches wherein the method further comprises: playing, in response to a progress adjustment operation performed on a target region of the playing interface when the video is being played according to the first multiplied playing speed, the video according to both a playing progress corresponding to the progress adjustment operation and the first multiplied playing speed (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, a video can be played at regular 1X speed and also have its progress adjusted via manipulation of a displayed (and positioned) control 130 (which is interpreted as a target region) while the video is being played), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not teach wherein the fast multiplied-speed playing operation is a long-press operation on the target region of the playing interface; wherein the multiplied-speed adjustment operation comprises a sliding operation towards a first direction, and a sliding operation towards a second direction on the target region, and wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction, and the first direction and the second direction respectively correspond to different multiplied playing speeds; wherein the progress adjustment operation comprises a sliding towards a third direction; and sliding operation towards a fourth direction on the target region of the playing interface, and wherein the third direction corresponds to a video forward play direction, and the fourth direction corresponds to a video backward play direction, wherein the third direction is opposite to the fourth direction, and wherein the third direction and the fourth direction are different from the first direction and the second direction.
Yet Angiolillo et al teaches wherein the fast multiplied-speed playing operation is a long-press operation on the target region of the playing interface; wherein the multiplied-speed adjustment operation comprises a[n] … operation towards a first direction, and a[n] … operation towards a second direction on the target region, and wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction, and the first direction and the second direction respectively correspond to different multiplied playing speeds (paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030, 0035, Fig. 5C: a user can apply an adjustment towards an up arrow direction (218U) to increase a multiplier speed and a user can apply an adjustment towards a down arrow direction to decrease a multiplier speed. Also a user can hold a direction indicator to apply a continuous multiplied speed until the user releases a directional indicator ); wherein the progress adjustment operation comprises a sliding towards a third direction; and sliding operation towards a fourth direction on the target region of the playing interface, and wherein the third direction corresponds to a video forward play direction, and the fourth direction corresponds to a video backward play direction, wherein the third direction is opposite to the fourth direction, and wherein the third direction and the fourth direction are different from the first direction and the second direction (paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030, 0035, Fig. 5C: a user can apply an adjustment in a right direction to indicate a forward play direction (228) and apply an adjustment in a left direction to indicate a backward play direction (230)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg and Li’s ability to process and interpret user directional touch input on a target display for controlling how video is played and multiplied, such that the user directional input would have modified such that it would have been mapped to four directions ( first and second directions would correspond to different playing speeds and third and fourth would correspond to progress direction of forward and backward when playing media), as taught by Angiolillo et al. The combination would have allowed a user to make intuitive selections of playback controls with informative feedback (within a player interface)
However although the combination of Rosenberg, Li and Angiolillo et al teaches touch input is identified and processed for four different directions, the combination does not expressly teach the type of directional touch input would have included … a sliding operation towards a first direction, and a sliding operation towards a second direction on the target region …; a sliding towards a third direction; and a sliding operation towards a fourth direction on the target region …
Yet Hosseinkhani Loorak et al teaches … input is identified and processed for four different directions, the combination does not expressly teach the type of directional touch input would have included … a sliding operation towards a first direction, and a sliding operation towards a second direction on the target region …; a sliding towards a third direction; and a sliding operation towards a fourth direction on the target region … (Fig 18A, paragraph 0107: a user can direct input to four different directions via slider control manipulations of both two directions vertically and two directions horizontally ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rosenberg, Li and Angiolillo et al’s ability to recognize user directional touch input for both bidirectional vertical and horizontal inputs, such that the vertical and horizontal inputs could have been applied to slider type controls as taught by Hosseinkhani Loorak et al. The combination would have made it easier for a user to visualize the magnitude of type of change/input applied to a control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roh et al (US Application: US 20140026051): This reference teaches manipulating an object progress bar for a video.
Checkley et al (US Application: US 20150370402): This reference teaches controlling playback of a video via a touch screen (with swipe and touch w/hold gestures).
Cho (US Application: US 2017/0336955): This reference teaches generating and reproducing multimedia content and implementing touch regions for navigation.
Gillespie et al (US Application: US 2002/0191029): This reference teaches a touch screen with user interface enhancement with horizontal and vertical control.
Kritt et al (US Application: US 20150373299): This reference teaches fine tune control of media presentation progress through scroll/progress bar augmentation.
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