DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 6/30/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15 and 17-25 are pending. Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 19 and 20 are currently amended, and Claims 24 and 25 are new.
The prior rejections of Claims 8-10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14-17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0149138 (“Watkins”), in view of Hicks, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0168076 (“Hicks”), and in view of Britton, U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0169609 (“Britton”).
With regard to Claim 1, Watkins teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor ([0043]); at least one memory component storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0045]), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting, via a user interface during display of a media collection on the user interface, a touch and hold ([0061] describes displaying an image from a collection of images on a touch screen; [0062] describes a user touching the screen and maintaining contact with it); and
based on detecting the touch and hold, causing media content in the media collection to auto advance in the user interface ([0062] describes that the touch input causes a sequential image display to be initiated, where images from the collection are displayed sequentially).
Watkins does not teach that causing the media content in the media collection to auto advance is based on detecting release of the touch and hold. Britton teaches at [0056] that a navigation control can initiate navigation through content in response to a release of a touch and hold gesture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to then combine Britton with Watkins. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling a user to auto-advance content without having to keep their fingers engaged with the touch-screen, thereby freeing users to do other things with their hand while also viewing auto-advanced content.
Watkins also does not teach detecting a touch and hold for a predefined time before the release of the touch and hold, detecting release after the predefined time, or detecting, via the user interface while the media content in the media collection is auto advancing in the user interface, a touch or tap anywhere on the user interface; and based on detecting the touch or tap anywhere on the user interface, causing the auto advance to stop.
Hicks teaches at [0016] that a user can engage a concentration mode, which automatically advances through content; the auto-advance feature can be enabled by a user inputting a touch and hold, where [0027] describes that the duration of the touch and hold can be predetermined as a setting entered by the user. Hicks teaches at [0016] that a user can input a touch to a pause button to stop the auto-advancing of content, which is a touch anywhere on the user interface, as the button is a location on the user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Britton and Watkins with Hicks. Modifying Watkins and Britton to include a pause button for an auto advance feature further increases user convenience, by enabling a simple interface element to allow users to enter and exit auto content advancement as desired. Similarly, enabling a configurable touch and hold time improves user experience, as the interface can be customized to recognize input gestures as each individual user prefers.
Claim 12 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a medium storing instructions which execute to implement the system of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Hicks teaches wherein the touch and hold is within a predefined area on the user interface. [0027] describes that a user can assign the mode engagement function to a particular area of the screen, which in the exemplary embodiment described is an edge of the screen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Watkins and Britton to use the gestures described in Hicks to initiate and stop a media auto-advance feature. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling a user to auto-advance content without having to keep their fingers engaged with the touch-screen, thereby freeing users to do other things with their hand while also viewing auto-advanced content.
Claim 14 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Watkins teaches that the predefined area is an area within a predefined distance from a right edge of the user interface. [0063] describes that the touch position can be within a defined rectangular region along an edge of the touch screen, thereby enabling an area that has a predefined distance for the touch and hold gesture away from the right edge.
Claim 15 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Watkins teaches that the media content in the media collection auto advances at a predefined rate. [0070] describes a predefined function which is used to calculate the rate of time at which images will be displayed. This also includes a predefined maximum rate.
Claim 17 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Hicks teaches that the touch or tap on the user interface is an input anywhere on the user interface. [0016] describes that a user can also pause the auto-advance feature by manually interacting with elements such as a reading pane, thereby allowing users to touch various locations on the screen to pause the auto-advance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Watkins and Britton to use the gestures described in Hicks to initiate and stop a media auto-advance feature. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling a user to auto-advance content without having to keep their fingers engaged with the touch-screen, thereby freeing users to do other things with their hand while also viewing auto-advanced content.
Claim 16 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 21, Watkins teaches that the touch and hold is within a first predefined area on the user interface and the operations further comprise: detecting a second touch and hold within a second predefined area on the user interface; and responsive to detecting the second touch and hold within the second predefined area on the user interface, causing the media collection to auto advance backwards from a current media content item until a beginning of the media collection. [0068] describes that a screen can include both a scroll forward and scroll backward region, such that a user gesture can advance forward or backward through the images depending on where in the screen the touch is input.
With regard to Claim 22, Watkins teaches that the second predefined area is on a left side of the user interface. [0068] describes that the scroll backward region is the left half of the screen.
With regard to Claim 23, Hicks teaches when an end of the media collection is reached in auto advance, the operations comprise: causing a next media collection to auto advance. [0016] describes that the auto-advance goes through the content for a page. [0022] describes that a control can move forward to a next page, thereby causing a next media collection on a next page to be displayed, which can be carried out when an end is reached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Watkins and Britton to use the gestures described in Hicks to initiate and stop a media auto-advance feature. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling a user to auto-advance content without having to keep their fingers engaged with the touch-screen, thereby freeing users to do other things with their hand while also viewing auto-advanced content.
With regard to Claim 24, Britton, in view of Hicks teaches based on detecting release of the touch and hold after the predefined time, causing a selectable user interface element to pause or stop auto advance of the media content. Hicks teaches at [0016] that a user can input a touch to a pause button to stop the auto-advancing of content, thereby enabling a user to cause a selectable user interface element to pause or stop the auto advance. Britton teaches at [0056] that a navigation control can initiate navigation through content in response to a release of a touch and hold gesture; therefore, the pausing of content is based on the release of the touch and hold having started the auto advance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Britton and Watkins with Hicks. Modifying Watkins and Britton to include a pause button for an auto advance feature further increases user convenience, by enabling a simple interface element to allow users to enter and exit auto content advancement as desired. Similarly, enabling a configurable touch and hold time improves user experience, as the interface can be customized to recognize input gestures as each individual user prefers.
With regard to Claim 25, Watkins teaches that the touch and hold is within a number of pixels from an edge of the user interface. [0062] describes a user touching the screen and maintaining contact with it. As every location on a screen is within a number of pixels from the edge of the user interface, this would teach or suggest the touch and hold is within a number of pixels from an edge of the user interface.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, in view of Hicks, in view of Britton, and in view of Lebowitz, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0011580 (“Lebowitz”).
With regard to Claim 7, Watkins teaches that the media content in the media collection auto advances at a predefined rate for media content comprising an image. [0070] describes a predefined function which is used to calculate the rate of time at which images will be displayed. This also includes a predefined maximum rate.
Watkins does not teach that upon displaying a media content comprising a video, the system causes display of the video in a normal playback speed. Lebowitz at Figs. 3A-3E and [0041]-[0048] describes an input to enter a mode which allows a user to initiate a mode that allows successive display of a collection of images. [0050] describes that media content items can also include videos, where a video being loaded into the preview mode pane causes the playing of the video content in the pane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Lebowitz with Watkins, Britton and Hicks. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for multiple media types to be navigable in a viewing interface that automatically navigates through a media collection.
Claim 18 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, in view of Britton, in view of Hicks, in view of Tigchelaar, U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0331125 (“Tigchelaar”) and Chakirov, U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0286035 (“Chakirov”).
With regard to Claim 8, Watkins, in view of Tigchelaar and Chakirov teaches detecting three or more taps on the user interface having less than a predefined amount of time between each tap; and based on detecting three or more taps on the user interface having less than the predefined amount of time between each tap, causing media content in the media collection to auto advance in the user interface.
Watkins teaches at [0062] inputting a touch gesture to initiate an auto advance of media content. Tigchelaar teaches at [0050] a guided media presentation, where [0124] describes that the media guidance progresses through pages of media content automatically. [0123] describes that a user can enter a triple tap to begin the guided media presentation. Chakirov teaches at [0109] that detecting a three-tap gesture involves detecting that the three taps occur within a time frame to be detected as a single input, i.e. the total time between taps is shorter than the time frame. In order for this to occur, both will have to have less than the specified time frame between each tap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Watkins, Britton and Hicks with Tigchelaar and Chakirov. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling a wider array of input gestures for controlling the presentation of media, thereby increasing user control options available through a touchscreen interface. Ensuring a three tap gesture meets a time criterion also ensures that such a gesture is properly distinguished from other touch gestures, thereby increasing the system’s ability to distinguish gestures.
Claim 19 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, Hicks, in view of Tigchelaar teaches causing display of a selectable user interface element to pause or stop auto advance of the media content after detecting the three or more taps on the user interface having less than the predefined amount of time between each tap and causing media content in the media collection to auto advance in the user interface. Hicks teaches at [0016] that after a user initiates the auto-advance mode, a user can select a pause button to stop the auto-advancing of content. Therefore, when a user initiates or restarts an auto-advance mode using a triple tap as described at [0123]-[0124] of Tigchelaar, Hicks teaches provision of the selectable pause element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Watkins, Britton and Hicks with Tigchelaar and Chakirov. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling a wider array of input gestures for controlling the presentation of media, thereby increasing user control options available through a touchscreen interface. Ensuring a three tap gesture meets a time criterion also ensures that such a gesture is properly distinguished from other touch gestures, thereby increasing the system’s ability to distinguish gestures.
With regard to Claim 10, Hicks, in view of Slavin teaches causing display of a selectable user interface element to auto advance the media content after detecting the three or more taps on the user interface having less than the predefined amount of time between each tap; and causing the media content in the media collection to auto advance in the user interface based on detecting selection of the selectable user interface element. [0016] describes that subsequent to pausing the auto-advance, a user can select a play button UI feature to re-start the auto-advance feature. Therefore, when a user initiates or restarts an auto-advance mode using a triple tap as described at 0123]-[0124] of Tigchelaar, with the timing described at [0109] of Chakirov, Hicks teaches provision of the selectable pause element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Watkins, Britton and Hicks with Tigchelaar and Chakirov. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling a wider array of input gestures for controlling the presentation of media, thereby increasing user control options available through a touchscreen interface. Ensuring a three tap gesture meets a time criterion also ensures that such a gesture is properly distinguished from other touch gestures, thereby increasing the system’s ability to distinguish gestures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues with regard to Claim 1 that the references do not teach the recited “release of the touch and hold after a predetermined time.” However, Applicant only addresses the references individually, and does not account for what the combination of references teaches. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As explained in the rejection, Watkins teaches detecting a touch and hold to initiate an auto advance function, at [0062]. Britton teaches initiating a media advance function in response to a detected release of a touch-and-hold at [0056]. Hicks teaches at [0027] that a duration for detecting a touch and hold to engage a media auto-advance feature can be predetermined, as it is a setting made by a user.
Therefore, as Watkins teaches initiating an auto-advance function with a touch and hold, Britton teaches advancing media by detecting a release of a touch-and-hold, and Hicks teaches a predefined time required for detecting a touch and hold, the combination of references teaches “based on detecting release of the touch and hold after the predefined time, causing media content in the media collection to auto advance in the user interface.”
Applicant also argues that using three references to reject a limitation indicates novelty, which is irrelevant to the rejection, as the claim limitations stand rejected as obvious, not for lacking novelty. As Applicant admits, the number of references does not weigh against the finding of obviousness, and therefore this limitation remains properly rejected as obvious in view of the cited references.
Applicant then argues with regard to the subject matter added by amendment that Hicks does not teach the recited “detecting, via the user interface while the media content in the media collection is auto advancing in the user interface, a touch or tap anywhere on the user interface; and based on detecting the touch or tap anywhere on the user interface, causing the auto advance to stop,” because Hicks describes detecting input to specific buttons or areas. However, in the context of a method or a processor performing operations, detecting an input on a button or area of the interface is detecting an input “anywhere on the user interface,” Hicks does not te
as “anywhere on the user interface” includes a button or specified area that causes the auto-advance to stop. Therefore, the recited method and processes are carried out for a detected touch “anywhere on the interface” by the touch operations described in Hicks.
For these reasons, as well as for the reasons given in the above rejection, the claims remain properly rejected as obvious in view of the cited prior art references, as those references teach or suggest the elements of the amended claims. As the dependent claims have not been challenged separate from the argued aspects of Claim 1, those claims are likewise properly rejected under the cited art of record.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights