DETAILED ACTION
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 claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harshawat et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046312) in view of Delpuch et al. (US Pub. 2005/0091690), herein referenced as Harshawat and Delpuch, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Harshawat discloses “A playing control method, comprising: playing a target video at a first playing speed in a video playing page, wherein the video playing page further displays a target page content and a first interaction control ([0042], [0084]-[0086], Fig. 4A-B, i.e., a user is viewing a news program 402 and a corresponding news overlay 404 that presents the data values. In this example, overlay 404 includes a UI component 406 (e.g., button) with which the user can interact to view a local news story identified in overlay. Additionally, a user may interact with a UI component of an overlay rendered by the client device or interaction with a video player control (e.g., pause, stop, rewind, fast forward)); and
in response to a first triggering operation on the first interaction control, playing the target video at a second playing speed in a triggering process of the first triggering operation, and canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page ...” ([0119], [0121], [0152], [0187], i.e., at least a first template in the set of templates specifies a set of trigger events and indicates that a corresponding overlay GUI is to be presented within a portion of a display responsive to a trigger event in a first subset of the set of trigger events. In addition, the first template may indicate that the overlay GUI is to be removed from the display responsive to a trigger event in a second subset of the set of trigger events. Additionally, a trigger event may include a video fast forward event or a video rewind event).
Harshawat discloses trigger events including fast forwarding and removing an overlay GUI from the display responsive to a trigger event, however Harshawat fails to explicitly disclose canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation.
Delpuch teaches the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation ([0087], i.e., some applications may choose to remove all graphical overlays from the screen during a Fast-forward Operation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation as taught by Delpuch, to improve the video overlay system of Harshawat for the predictable result of removing screen clutter to provide the user with a clearer view while performing a fast-forward operation.
Regarding claim 2, Harshawat discloses “in response to the triggering process of the first triggering operation ending, replaying the target video at the first playing speed and redisplaying the target page content in the video playing page.” ([0042], [0121], [0147], i.e., a user action can include a “show overlay request” after triggering a video fast forward event or a video rewind event, thus replaying the target video at the first playing speed and redisplaying the target page content in the video playing page).
Regarding claim 3, Harshawat discloses “wherein the first triggering operation is applied within a preset associated region of the video playing page where the first interaction control is located, the method further comprising: in the triggering process of the first triggering operation, displaying the preset associated region where the first interaction control is located in the video playing page.” ([0042], [0084]-[0086], Fig. 4A-B, i.e., UI component 406 is displayed within overlay 404).
Regarding claim 9, Harshawat discloses “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory, which is in communication connection with the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executed by the at least one processor, and the computer program, run by the at least one processor ([0194]-[0195]), causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
playing a target video at a first playing speed in a video playing page, wherein the video playing page further displays a target page content and a first interaction control ([0042], [0084]-[0086], Fig. 4A-B, i.e., a user is viewing a news program 402 and a corresponding news overlay 404 that presents the data values. In this example, overlay 404 includes a UI component 406 (e.g., button) with which the user can interact to view a local news story identified in overlay. Additionally, a user may interact with a UI component of an overlay rendered by the client device or interaction with a video player control (e.g., pause, stop, rewind, fast forward)); and
in response to a first triggering operation on the first interaction control, playing the target video at a second playing speed in a triggering process of the first triggering operation, and canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page...” ([0119], [0121], [0152], [0187], i.e., at least a first template in the set of templates specifies a set of trigger events and indicates that a corresponding overlay GUI is to be presented within a portion of a display responsive to a trigger event in a first subset of the set of trigger events. In addition, the first template may indicate that the overlay GUI is to be removed from the display responsive to a trigger event in a second subset of the set of trigger events. Additionally, a trigger event may include a video fast forward event or a video rewind event).
Harshawat discloses trigger events including fast forwarding and removing an overlay GUI from the display responsive to a trigger event, however Harshawat fails to explicitly disclose canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation.
Delpuch teaches the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation ([0087], i.e., some applications may choose to remove all graphical overlays from the screen during a Fast-forward Operation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation as taught by Delpuch, to improve the video overlay system of Harshawat for the predictable result of removing screen clutter to provide the user with a clearer view while performing a fast-forward operation.
Regarding claim 10, Harshawat discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0194]-[0195]) comprising:
playing a target video at a first playing speed in a video playing page, wherein the video playing page further displays a target page content and a first interaction control ([0042], [0084]-[0086], Fig. 4A-B, i.e., a user is viewing a news program 402 and a corresponding news overlay 404 that presents the data values. In this example, overlay 404 includes a UI component 406 (e.g., button) with which the user can interact to view a local news story identified in overlay. Additionally, a user may interact with a UI component of an overlay rendered by the client device or interaction with a video player control (e.g., pause, stop, rewind, fast forward)); and
in response to a first triggering operation on the first interaction control, playing the target video at a second playing speed in a triggering process of the first triggering operation, and canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page…” ([0119], [0121], [0152], [0187], i.e., at least a first template in the set of templates specifies a set of trigger events and indicates that a corresponding overlay GUI is to be presented within a portion of a display responsive to a trigger event in a first subset of the set of trigger events. In addition, the first template may indicate that the overlay GUI is to be removed from the display responsive to a trigger event in a second subset of the set of trigger events. Additionally, a trigger event may include a video fast forward event or a video rewind event).
Harshawat discloses trigger events including fast forwarding and removing an overlay GUI from the display responsive to a trigger event, however Harshawat fails to explicitly disclose canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation.
Delpuch teaches the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation ([0087], i.e., some applications may choose to remove all graphical overlays from the screen during a Fast-forward Operation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of canceling the display of the target page content in the video playing page during the triggering process of the first triggering operation as taught by Delpuch, to improve the video overlay system of Harshawat for the predictable result of removing screen clutter to provide the user with a clearer view while performing a fast-forward operation.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5-6, 14-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harshawat in view of Delpuch and in further view of Flint et al. (US Pub. 2016/0259412), herein referenced as Flint.
Regarding claim 5, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “in response to a second triggering operation on a target interaction control displayed in the video playing page, switching a current playing speed of the target video according to a preset playing speed sequence, wherein the target interaction control comprises the first interaction control or a third second interaction control different from the first interaction control.
Flint teaches the technique of providing in response to a second triggering operation on a target interaction control displayed in the video playing page, switching a current playing speed of the target video according to a preset playing speed sequence ([0183]-[0186], [0190], Fig. 5C-D, i.e., upon activation of the fast forward function, the speed by which the selected media content is presented in content window 502 is increased from the normal playback speed (e.g., 1× speed) to a first predetermined higher value (e.g., a first fast forward speed of two times the normal playback speed, or, 2× speed)), wherein the target interaction control comprises the first interaction control or a second interaction control different from the first interaction control ([0183], Fig. 5C-D, i.e., fast forward control 512, and rewind control 514).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing in response to a second triggering operation on a target interaction control displayed in the video playing page, switching a current playing speed of the target video according to a preset playing speed sequence, wherein the target interaction control comprises the first interaction control or a third second interaction control different from the first interaction control as taught by Flint, to improve the video overlay system of Harshawat for the predictable result of providing the viewer with additional playback options for quick media navigation.
Regarding claim 6, Harshawat discloses “in response to a display canceling operation on the target interaction control, stopping the displaying of the target interaction control in the video playing page ([0042], [0121], [0147], [0152], i.e., hide overlay request); and in response to a control display operation on for the target interaction control, displaying the target interaction control in the video playing page.” ([0042], [0121], [0147], [0152], i.e., show overlay request).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 13, 16, 19 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.
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 Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights