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 .
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose “displaying a plurality of interface elements in a video play area of a video play page while playing a video in the video play area of the video play page; in response to an operation performed on one of the plurality of interface elements displayed in the video play area of the video play page, generating a video list and displaying the video list in an extended state in a list display area of the video play page, wherein the video list corresponds to the one of the plurality of interface elements, and wherein the list display area has a first display size when the video list is displayed in the extended state; and in response to an instruction of folding the video, switching the video list from the extended state to a folded state, wherein the list display area has a second display size when the video list is displayed in the folded state, wherein the second display size is smaller than the first display size”. Claims 6; 17; 20 are still objected.
However, Nakamura et al show in fig.1, fig.8 and fig.12d a system for displaying list of video contents and the system is able to use three different techniques for processing and presenting contents in specific areas of the screen and content being displayed on the screen could be changed based upon trigger operation to display personal homepage and the system is able to split the screen in specific way in order to display comments related to video contents being viewed on the screen and the system can display multiple user interfaces during presentation of the video content. Finally, the system is able to switch from one display format to another display format based on the user selection of the folding button as disclosed in para. 0062-0063;0072-0073; 0070-0071; 0029; 0032-0034; 0007;0039;0082. Based on that consideration, we can conclude that the cited references were combined properly to meet the limitations of the claims and the rejection is considered to be reasonable and acceptable. This action is made final.
Claims objections
Claims 6; 17; 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
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; 7; 11; 13-15; 18-19; 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura(US.Pub.No.20050149977).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al disclose a method for generating and displaying a video list(see fig.8 to fig.12d for displaying list of video contents), comprising:
displaying a plurality of interface elements in a video play area of a video play page
while playing a video in the video play area of the video play page(See fig.8 to fig.12D for displaying multiple user interfaces during presentation of the video content; 0072-0073);
in response to an operation performed on one of the plurality of interface elements displayed in the video play area of the video play page, generating a video list and displaying the video list in an extended state in a list display area of the video play page(see fig.8 to fig.12d for displaying video contents on the screen in expanded format based on user input or selection; 0063) , wherein the video list corresponds to the one of the plurality of interface elements(see fig.8 to fig.12d with list of video contents via user interface; abstract; 0070-0071), and wherein the list display area has a first display size when the video list is displayed in the extended state(see fig.8 to fig.12d for displaying list of video contents in a small area of the screen; 0007); and
in response to an instruction of folding the video (see fig.5 with the fold button b11; 0029; 0032-0034), switching the video list from the extended state to a folded state(the system is able to switch from one display format to another display format based on the user selection of the folding button;0062-0063;0073); wherein the list display area has a second display size when the video list is displayed in the folded state, wherein the second display size is smaller than the first display size(see fig.8 to fig.11d for displaying list of video contents in a reduced size or area of the screen; 0007;0039;0082).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura et al disclose further comprising: creating the list display area with the first display size in the video play page and adjusting a display size of the video play area based on the first display size of the list display area before displaying the video list in the extended state in the list display area of the video play page; and adjusting the display size of the video play area based on the second display size of the list display area after switching the video list from the extended state to the folded state( see fig.5 and fig.8 to fig.12d for adjusting the display area of video contents based on inputs being received from users; 0007; 0029;0037; 0039;0082).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura et al disclose wherein the video list comprises information of videos posted by a publisher of the video that is currently played in the video play area(the system can display video content in the focus area; 0064-0065; 0069;0073) , and wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that a video item corresponding to the currently played video is not displayed in the list display area, displaying a location tag in the list display area to indicate(the system can display location tag or location pointer on the screen; see fig.8 to fig.12d; 0065-0066), via the location tag(see fig.8 to fig.12d; ), a relative position relationship in the video list between video items displayed in the list display area and the video item corresponding to the currently played video(the system can scroll the pointer or the tag in different positions on the screen; 0065-0066; 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura et al disclose wherein before adjusting the video list from the extended state to the folded state in response to the list folding instruction(see fig.5 and fig.8 to fig.12d for allowing the system to switch from one display format to another display format;0073;0039;0062-0063) ; the method further comprises: in response to a video switching instruction indicative of switching from the video that is currently played to a target video, generating the list folding instruction and switching from the video to the target video(0062-0063), wherein a video item corresponding to the target video is located in the video list, and wherein the target video is different from the video that was played in the video play area before the switching(see fig.8 to fig.12d for moving video content to focus area based on user inputs; 0064-0065;0073-0076).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 7.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura(US.Pub.No.20050149977) in view of Shoemaker(US.Pub.No.20080091526).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura et al disclose wherein after displaying the location tag in the list display area, the method further comprises(see fig.8 to fig.12d for displaying location tag and location pointer on specific area of the screen; 0064-0066;0033;0077).
But did not explicitly disclose in response to a trigger operation performed on the location tag, controlling a plurality of video items displayed in the list display area to move simultaneously, and moving the video item corresponding to the currently played video into the list display area for display.
However, Shoemaker et al disclose in response to a trigger operation performed on the location tag, controlling a plurality of video items displayed in the list display area to move simultaneously, and moving the video item corresponding to the currently played video into the list display area for display(the system is able to display additional contents on the screen based on trigger event or action; 0037-0038; 0042).
It would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shoemaker to modify Nakamura by introducing trigger event or action of Shoemaker to the system of Nakamura resulting in “ in response to a trigger operation performed on the location tag, controlling a plurality of video items displayed in the list display area to move simultaneously, and moving the video item corresponding to the currently played video into the list display area for display” for the purpose of activating specific commands accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the video list comprises information of videos posted by a publisher of the video that is currently played in the video play area, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation performed on publisher information displayed in the list display area, displaying a personal homepage of the publisher who published the video that is currently played.
However, Shoemaker et al disclose wherein the video list comprises information of videos posted by a publisher of the video that is currently played in the video play area, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation performed on publisher information displayed in the list display area, displaying a personal homepage of the publisher who published the video that is currently played(the system is able to provide web contents based on trigger actions; 0042;0049; 0051;0056-0057).
It would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shoemaker to modify Nakamura by introducing trigger event or action of Shoemaker to the system of Nakamura resulting in “ wherein the video list comprises information of videos posted by a publisher of the video that is currently played in the video play area, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation performed on publisher information displayed in the list display area, displaying a personal homepage of the publisher who published the video that is currently played ” for the purpose of activating specific commands accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 8.
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 JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights