DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, independent claim 1, line 4, recites “instead of an image of the video..” the claimed “instead of an image of the video..” appears to have no support in Applicant’s disclosure.
Independent claims 9 and 10, recite similar claim limitations, and are rejected on the same ground(s).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection discussed below. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection. Please note the 112 Rejection above. This office action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-13, 16-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by STORY, JR. et al (9,420,319).
As to claims 1-4, STORY, JR discloses a method or an electronic device, comprising one or more processors and a memory storing one or more programs of displaying information, comprising:
the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method of displaying information associated with a target audio clip in a first display area (figs.1-3, Col.3, line 33-Col.4, line 38, Col.7, line 16-Col.8, line 52 and Col.10, line 45-Col.12, line 1+)
playing a video of recommending a target object on a video playback page; and automatically displaying information based on a voice of target audio clip, instead of an image of the video in response to determining that the video is played to a target video clip corresponding to the target audio clip where the information is displayed in a first display area of the video playback page and wherein the target audio clip is an audio clip containing a preset keyword (Book, music, ABC, etc.) in the video (figs.1-3, Col.3, line 33-Col.4, line 38, Col.7, line 16-Col.8, line 52 and Col.10, line 45-Col.12, line 1+); displaying, in the first display area of the video playback page, text information corresponding to the target audio clip, wherein the text information is obtained by performing voice recognition on the target audio clip; displaying text currently being broadcast among the text information in a first display state and displaying text not currently being broadcast among the text information in a second display state-in the first display area of the video playback page and stopping displaying the information associated with the target audio clip in the first display area of the video playback page in response to determining that a playback of the target video clip is completed (figs. 1-3, Abstract, (figs.1-3, Col.3, line 33-Col.4, line 38, Col.7, line 16-Col.8, line 52, Col.10, line 45-Col.11, line 1+ and Col.15, line 48-Col.17, line 29), automatically generates notifications/recommendation related to audio books, music, extract, being broadcast; can have different colors, sizes, locations, etc., based on the information and preferences as desired.
As to claims 7, STORY, JR further discloses in response to a trigger operation performed on the information associated with the target audio clip, switching a current page from the video playback page to a detail page of the target object and displaying second detailed information of the target object in the detail page (Col.13, line 47-Col.14, line 48 and Col.15, line 48-Col.16, line 54).
As to claims 9 and 11-13, the claimed “An electronic device…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to claims 1-4.
Claim 16 is met as previously discussed in claim 7.
As to claims 10, 11-13 and 20, the claimed “A non-transitory computer…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to claims 1-4
Claim 21 is met as previously discussed in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim(s) 5-6, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STORY, JR. et al (9,420,319) in view of BLOCH et al (2017/0295410)
As to claims 5-6, 14-15 and 19, STORY, JR further discloses all the claims limitations as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 9 and 10 respectively, and further discloses moving the information associated with the target audio clip from the first display area to a second display area of the video playback page, wherein the second display area is configured to display object information of the target object; and displaying the information associated with the target audio clip in a gradual zoom-out manner during the moving the information associated with the target audio clip from the first display area to the second display area of the video playback page; displaying the information associated with the target audio clip in the second display area; or displaying first details of information corresponding to the information associated with the target audio clip in the second display area, and stopping displaying the information associated with the target audio clip in the second display area (Col.7, line 16-Col.8, line 52, Col.10, line 45-Col.11, line 1+ and Col.15, line 48-Col.17, line 29), the notifications/recommendation related to audio books, music, extract, being broadcast; can have different colors, sizes, , locations, etc., based on the information and preferences as desired, BUT appears silent as to displaying the information associated with the target audio clip in a gradual zoom-out.
However, in the same field of endeavor, BLOCH discloses interactive video and overlays and further discloses gradual zoom-in or zoom-out during specific content interactions (figs.1-6, Abstract, [0031-0048])
Hence it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of BLOCH into the system of STORY, JR. to provide additional enhancement during content interactions
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNAN Q SHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, BRUCKART BENJAMIN can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ANNAN Q SHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
ANNAN Q. SHANG