DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 03/16/2026.
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
Application claims priority to foreign application with application number CN 202210022120.6 dated 01/10/2022. Additionally, application is a continuation of application 17/854,015. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been previously received in application 17/854,015. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 1, 13, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to these claims fully address the informalities which were pointed out. The objection to claims 1, 13, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant indicates that claim 3 has been amended to address the associated grammatical informality, and is marked as though it has been amended, but no change was actually made. The objection to claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mulase et al. (US 20220078510 A1).
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the limitation “the content item newly uploaded within a preset duration” because Mulase teaches a real-time streaming video. However, Mulase teaches that a user’s video content is received by a server during the distribution process ([0021] “When a user of a client device 10 attempts to distribute a video, the server device 20 receives the distributed video and distributes the distributed video to another client device 10 that makes a viewing request.”; also see [0023]). Therefore, the video content of Mulase may be considered “newly uploaded” as it is continuously being uploaded before being distributed to a viewer. The invention of Mulase only displays videos which are currently being streamed, therefore satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation of “uploaded within a preset duration” where the duration is zero.
Secondly, applicant argues that Schmidt does not teach the limitation: “replacing an identity image of the first user with the preview” because the invention of Schmidt only relates to one user, rather than the claimed interaction between a first video uploading user and a second video browsing user. However, Mulase teaches this interaction, with a video preview associated with an uploading user being generated for a browsing user to view. Schmidt is only relied upon to teach the specific interface design of an identity image being replaced with a video preview. In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention’s purpose of replacing an identity image with a video preview differs from Schmidt’s purpose, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. Likewise, the rejection of the similar independent claims is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3: “further comprises” should be “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11995751 B2 in view of Mulase et al. (US 20220078510 A1, hereinafter "Mulase").
Regarding the instant claim 1, claim 1 of US 11995751 B2 does not explicitly teach: wherein the first user is a video posting user, and the content item is a newly uploaded content item; or wherein the second user is a video browsing user.
Mulase teaches: wherein the first user is a video posting user ([0026] “On each thumbnail image TI, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays in association a user image UI representing the user who is performing the distribution.”), and the content item is a newly uploaded content item (live streamed video is continuously uploaded to a server as it is distributed to a viewer: [0021] “When a user of a client device 10 attempts to distribute a video, the server device 20 receives the distributed video and distributes the distributed video to another client device 10 that makes a viewing request”; also see [0023]); and wherein the second user is a video browsing user ([0025] “The distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 renders a distributed video selection screen MS and displays the distributed video selection screen MS on the display region of the display device 15 if the user of the client device 10 wishes to view, as a viewing user, a video distributed by someone else. The distributed video selection screen MS is a screen for allowing a viewing user to select from a plurality of distributed videos M that are being distributed at the timing when the screen is displayed…”).
It would have been obvious to apply the invention of US 11995751 B2 towards streaming video interfaces as taught by Mulase, which is also in the same field of user interfaces for transmitting and displaying personal video data from a first user to a second user, for purposes along the lines of YouTube or Twitch which are well known in the art.
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/674,356 and US 11995751 B2.
Application 18/674,356
US 11995751 B2
1
1 (and Mulase)
2
1
3
1
4
2
5
3
6
4
7
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
13 (and Mulase)
16
14 (and Mulase)
17
15 (and Mulase)
18
16
19
17
20
18
Claim 1 (Application 18/674,356)
Claim 1 (US 11995751 B2)
A video processing method, comprising:
A video processing method, comprising:
presenting an interactive interface, which comprising at least one designated area associated with an identity image of at least one user;
presenting an avatar of at least one user… in response to a user presentation area in an interactive interface being opened wherein the user presentation area comprises the first user.
generating a preview according to a content item posted by a first user within a preset duration,
generating a preview image as a dynamic image according to a video content posted by a first user within a preset duration;
wherein the first user is a video posting user, and the content item is a newly uploaded content item;
Mulase
presenting the preview within a designated area associated with the first user, wherein the first user is one of the at least one user; and
playing the dynamic image within an area where an avatar of the first user is located, under the condition that the first user exists in the at least one user, wherein the first user is a user who has posted the video content within the preset duration, and the dynamic image is a related image of the video content; and
presenting the content item in response to a trigger of a second user on the preview,
presenting the video content posted by the first user in response to an operation of a second user on the dynamic image,
wherein the second user is a video browsing user,
Mulase
wherein the presenting the preview within the designated area associated with the first user comprises: replacing an identity image of the first user with the preview.
wherein playing the dynamic image within the area where the avatar of the first user is located comprises: replacing the avatar of the first user with the dynamic image,
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) 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulase et al. (US 20220078510 A1, hereinafter "Mulase") in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20170109122 A1, hereinafter "Schmidt").
Regarding claim 1, Mulase teaches: A video processing method ([0006]), comprising:
presenting an interactive interface, which comprises at least one designated area associated with an identity image of at least one user (fig. 3 shows six designated areas for users’ videos, each comprising a user image UI as well as a thumbnail image TI; [0026] “On each thumbnail image TI, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays in association a user image UI representing the user who is performing the distribution. The user image UI may be an avatar image, a photograph image, or the like that each user has registered in advance in the server device 20.”);
generating a preview according to a content item posted by a first user within a preset duration ([0025] “The distributed video selection screen MS is a screen for allowing a viewing user to select from a plurality of distributed videos M that are being distributed at the timing when the screen is displayed, and includes thumbnail images TI that represent respective distributed videos M.”; [0027] “Further, when a viewing user has one of the distributed videos M in a selected state, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays a preview video PM in place of the thumbnail image TI for the distributed video M.”), wherein the first user is a video posting user ([0026] “On each thumbnail image TI, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays in association a user image UI representing the user who is performing the distribution.”), and the content item is a newly uploaded content item (live streamed video is continuously uploaded to a server as it is distributed to a viewer: [0021] “When a user of a client device 10 attempts to distribute a video, the server device 20 receives the distributed video and distributes the distributed video to another client device 10 that makes a viewing request”; also see [0023]);
presenting the preview within a designated area associated with the first user, wherein the first user is one of the at least one user (fig. 4 preview video PM is displayed in the same designated area associated with one out of the six users’ videos, in the same location previously occupied by thumbnail image TI as seen in fig. 3); and
presenting the content item in response to a trigger of a second user on the preview ([0027] “In a state where the distributed video selection screen MS is presented, the viewing user, while confirming the preview video PM or distribution status information that is described below, selects the distributed video M that the viewing user wants to view, and performs an operation to instruct the start of viewing. In response to this operation, the distributed video presentation unit 53, which is described below, starts display of the selected distributed video M.”), wherein the second user is a video browsing user ([0025] “The distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 renders a distributed video selection screen MS and displays the distributed video selection screen MS on the display region of the display device 15 if the user of the client device 10 wishes to view, as a viewing user, a video distributed by someone else. The distributed video selection screen MS is a screen for allowing a viewing user to select from a plurality of distributed videos M that are being distributed at the timing when the screen is displayed…”),
wherein the presenting the preview within the designated area associated with the first user comprises: replacing an image with the preview ([0027] “Further, when a viewing user has one of the distributed videos M in a selected state, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays a preview video PM in place of the thumbnail image TI for the distributed video M.”; see fig. 4 preview video PM in comparison to fig. 3 thumbnail image TI).
Mulase additionally teaches replacing an identity image of the first user with a video ([0041] “In addition, if the preview video PM is displayed, the distribution status information presentation unit 54 may reproduce and display a portion of the user video UM in place of the user image UI for the distributing user. Specifically, in FIG. 4, the user video UM that is being distributed by the same distributing user is reproduced and displayed as a moving image in the region (a user display region here) where the user image UI for the distributing user is displayed in FIG. 3.”)
Mulase does not explicitly teach: replacing an identity image of the first user with the preview.
Schmidt teaches replacing an identity image of the first user with the preview ([0116] “In some embodiments, where the information area 1410 includes a preview of the video while the camera is enabled, the video preview is replaced by a static image when the camera is disabled (e.g., the user's avatar, the last frame recorded before the camera was disabled, etc.).”, suggesting that the opposite scenario also occurs – when the camera is enabled, the static image (which may be a user avatar) is replaced with the video preview;
Schmidt teaches recording and broadcasting video, therefore the user described by Schmidt corresponds to the claimed “first user”).
Schmidt and Mulase are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of user interfaces for transmitting and displaying personal video data from a first user to a second user. Since combining these references would only require switching the placement of two videos without making any significant changes to the software implementation, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods to yield the predictable result of displaying the preview video in the user image location instead of the thumbnail location (MPEP 2143). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mulase with the teachings of Schmidt to obtain the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the preview is a dynamic content item related to the content item posted by the first user within the preset duration (Mulase [0027] “Further, when a viewing user has one of the distributed videos M in a selected state, the distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 displays a preview video PM in place of the thumbnail image TI for the distributed video M. The preview video PM may be a video that performs a reduced display of the distributed video M that is actually being distributed.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, further comprises:
presenting a user presentation area in the interactive interface, wherein the user presentation area comprises the at least one designated area associated with the identity image of the at least one user and the at least one user comprises the first user (Mulase fig. 3: the entire display area comprising the six designated areas for different users’ videos, each with an identity image, may be considered as a “user presentation area”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the content item comprises a video (Mulase [0021] “When a user of a client device 10 attempts to distribute a video, the server device 20 receives the distributed video and distributes the distributed video to another client device 10 that makes a viewing request.”),
the generating the preview according to the content item posted by the first user within the preset duration comprises:
extracting a plurality of video frames from the video; and
generating a dynamic picture as the preview according to the plurality of video frames (Mulase [0027] “The preview video PM may be a video that performs a reduced display of the distributed video M that is actually being distributed.”; video consists of a plurality of frames).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the presenting the content item in response to the trigger of the second user on the preview comprises:
playing the content item posted by the first user in response to the trigger of the second user on the preview (Mulase [0027] “In a state where the distributed video selection screen MS is presented, the viewing user, while confirming the preview video PM or distribution status information that is described below, selects the distributed video M that the viewing user wants to view, and performs an operation to instruct the start of viewing. In response to this operation, the distributed video presentation unit 53, which is described below, starts display of the selected distributed video M.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the presenting the preview within the designated area associated with the first user comprises:
enlarging and displaying the designated area associated with the first user; and
playing the preview within an enlarged designated area where the identity image of the first user is located (Mulase fig. 4: the selected stream preview, comprising UM and PM, is enlarged compared to the other thumbnails and to the original size which may be seen in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 9, further comprising:
after the playing of the dynamic content item is finished, reducing the enlarged designated area where the identity image of the first user is located to a size before the enlarging and displaying (Mulase fig. 3: non-selected static thumbnails are shown and are all the same size; if a preview video is no longer playing, it would return to this state as compared to the enlarged size as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the presenting the interactive interface comprises:
presenting the identity image of the first user in response to a user presentation area in the interactive interface being opened by the second user (Mulase [0025] “The distributed video selection screen presentation unit 52 renders a distributed video selection screen MS and displays the distributed video selection screen MS on the display region of the display device 15 if the user of the client device 10 wishes to view, as a viewing user, a video distributed by someone else.” – if the user of the client device chooses to view the video selection screen (which can be interpreted as the “user presentation area”), then the identity image of a first user will be displayed as seen in fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 15, they are rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivations to combine as claim 1 because their limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1, along with the additional limitations of:
Claim 13: A video processing apparatus, comprising: a display and a processor (Mulase fig. 1; [0015] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a client device 10 includes a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, and an interface unit 13. The client device 10 is also connected to an operation device 14 and a display device 15.”);
Claim 14: A video processing apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Mulase fig. 1; [0015] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a client device 10 includes a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, and an interface unit 13.”), the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory (Mulase [0016] “The control unit 11 includes at least one processor such as a CPU (Control Processing Unit), and executes a program stored in the storage unit 12 to execute various kinds of information processing.”).
Claim 15: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon stored a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements following steps (Mulase [0007] “A program according to one aspect of the present invention is a program for causing a computer to execute a distributed video selection screen presentation step… and a distribution status information presentation step… This program may be provided by being stored in a computer-readable, non-transitory information storage medium.”).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, they are rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivations to combine as claims 5 and 8 respectively because their limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of the aforementioned claims.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulase (US 20220078510 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20170109122 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Mayer (US 20070128899 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the generating the preview according to the content item posted by the first user within the preset duration comprises:
intercepting, in response to a duration of the content item exceeding a threshold, in the content item, a content clip with a duration corresponding to the threshold as the preview; and
taking the content item in whole as the preview, in response to the duration of the content item not exceeding the threshold.
Mayer teaches intercepting, in response to a duration of the content item exceeding a threshold, in the content item, a content clip with a duration corresponding to the threshold as the preview; and
taking the content item in whole as the preview, in response to the duration of the content item not exceeding the threshold ([0066] “In this case preferably these videos are for example automatically stopped when the preview image grows out of view and automatically restarted when they go back into view (for example as the user scrolls through the displayed directory contents) and/or for example the are run in a loop for example only within the first 1-2 minutes (or any other duration), and/or for example they are reset and start to run from the beginning again every time the preview window was outside of the visible user's view and then returns again into the visible user's view.”; suggesting that if the video were under 1-2 minutes, the entire video would be looped and would constitute the preview).
Mayer and the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating a preview of a video. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mulase in view of Schmidt with the teachings of Mayer to only generate a preview of a video when the video is long enough to need one. The motivation would have been to eliminate unnecessary computation.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivations to combine as claim 4 because its limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulase (US 20220078510 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20170109122 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN 105898610 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein:
the at least one user comprises a plurality of users, the presenting the interactive interface comprises: presenting a user list containing identity images of the plurality of users, the plurality of users comprising a plurality of first users (fig. 3 shows a list of 6 users, each with an identity image UI; each may be selected to display a video preview, making them all “first users”). The combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt also teaches associating a user’s identity image with a video and displaying them adjacently.
The combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt may not explicitly teach: the presenting the preview within the designated area associated with the first user comprises: presenting dynamic content items corresponding to the plurality of first users sequentially within designated areas where the identity images of the plurality of first users are located according to a sequence of the plurality of first users arranged in the user list, in response to the first users existing in the users.
Jiang teaches presenting dynamic content items corresponding to the plurality of first users sequentially within designated areas where the identity images of the plurality of first users are located according to a sequence of the plurality of first users arranged in the user list, in response to the first users existing in the users ([0027] “The video list displayed on the screen is shown in Figure 2, which includes one or more entries 20, each entry 20 corresponding to a video. Each entry 20 contains a preview area 201, which is used to display the corresponding video or a preview image of the video.”; [0045] “When a first selection instruction to play a video in the preview area of an item is received, the function of playing the corresponding video in the preview area of the item is enabled. At this time, when the video list is opened, the corresponding video will be automatically played in the preview area of the preset item. When the user controls the items in the video list to scroll up and down, the corresponding video will be played in the preview area of the item that is scrolled to the preset display area.” The video list of Jiang does not explicitly contain user identity images in sequential order along with the videos, but Mulase teaches this limitation as previously noted).
Jiang and the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of organizing and displaying user-generated content for another user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mulase in view of Schmidt with the teachings of Jiang to perform the claimed functionality. The motivation would have been to provide an easy to understand user interface for viewing and accessing a list of videos uploaded by different users.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivations to combine as claim 4 because its limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulase (US 20220078510 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20170109122 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Voss et al. (US 20210303139 A1, hereinafter "Voss").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one user comprises a plurality of users (Mulase fig. 3 shows 6 sets of user images UI and thumbnails TI, each corresponding to a video stream from different user), and
the presenting the interactive interface comprises:
presenting a user list containing identity images of the plurality of users (Mulase fig. 3 shows 6 user images UI).
The combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt may not explicitly teach the designated area where the identity image of the first user in the plurality of users is located being provided with a highlighted identification which is used for indicating the first user in the plurality of users.
Voss teaches: the designated area where the identity image of the first user in the plurality of users is located being provided with a highlighted identification which is used for indicating the first user in the plurality of users (fig. 7 shows a list of users with content available to view (702); user 706 has a pin icon adjacent to their identity image indicating that user should be prioritized when viewing associated content).
Voss and the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor of organizing and displaying user-generated content for another user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mulase in view of Schmidt with the teachings of Voss to provide a means of separating and identifying a unique user or group of users in a list of user icons associated with user-generated content. The motivation would have been to allow a viewing user to prioritize a “favorite” user or group of users in order to more easily access their generated content, as taught by Voss.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivations to combine as claim 4 because its limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 7.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulase (US 20220078510 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20170109122 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 20170264934 A1, hereinafter "Guo").
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt teaches: The video processing method according to claim 1, wherein the presenting the preview within the designated area associated with the first user comprises:
determining a playing frame rate of the preview (Schmidt [0075] “A timing controller 550 directs the FRC module 214 to output the content of the frame buffer 530 at the constant target rate. This enables an incoming high frame rate to be down-converted to a lower frame rate by dropping frames, and steps up a lower frame rate by duplicating frames. In some embodiments, the FRC module 214 interpolates between frames using known up/down sampling algorithms.”)
However, the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt does not explicitly teach: determining a playing frame rate of the preview according to performance of a video playing terminal, wherein the higher the performance of the video playing terminal, the higher the playing frame rate of the preview.
Guo teaches: determining a playing frame rate of the preview according to performance of a video playing terminal, wherein the higher the performance of the video playing terminal, the higher the playing frame rate of the preview ([0038] “As described with reference to FIG. 1 above, different client devices 150 may have different characteristics such as different processing capabilities, different connection speeds with the digital magazine server 140 over the network 130. In one embodiment, the preview generation module 340 generates multiple preview videos, each of which is for a different display resolution of the client devices 150, e.g., 480p, 720p, 1080p and 2160p. In another embodiment, the preview generation module 340 generates multiple preview videos, each of which is for a different network connection speed of the client devices 150. For example, for a client device 150 having a slow network connection speed, the preview generation module 340 generates a preview video with video frames sampled at a lower frame rate than for a client device 105 having a higher network connection speed.”).
Guo and the combination of Mulase in view of Schmidt are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor of organizing and displaying video content for a user, including generating and displaying a preview of a video. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mulase in view of Schmidt with the teachings of Guo to adjust the frame rate of a generated video preview depending on the capabilities of a client device. The motivation would have been to customize the output for a particular user in order to provide the best possible experience that their particular device can provide.
References Cited
Liao (US 9179116 B1) teaches generating a preview from a video only if the video duration exceeds a certain threshold.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN STATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/BENJAMIN TOM STATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights