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 .
This office action is in response to the application, preliminary amendment, and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 15 May 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority, CN202211047037.0 filed 8/30/2022 and CN202211424440.0 filed 11/14/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/15/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/15/24 has been accepted and entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 5/15/24 has been accepted and entered.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. In addition, the abstract includes additional text "FIG. 7" that is not meant to be included. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
communicator configured to be in communication in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
As per claim 1, the claim limitation containing “…communicator configured to”. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the limitation containing “…communicator configured to”. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed unit(s)/means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20070140658) (Disclosed in IDS filed 5/15/24) in further view of Stechschulte et al (US20170036106, 2017)
As per independent claim 1, Han discloses a display apparatus, comprising:
a display configured to display an image from a broadcasting system, a network and/or a user interface; (FIG 7; 0036)
a communicator configured to be in communication with the network; (0005-0006, 0029: PVR in communication with broadcasting station to receive AV data/broadcast)
a remote controller; (FIG 7; 0018, 0036)
a memory configured to store instructions and data associated with the display; (FIG 7; 0036)
at least one processor in connection with the display, the communicator and the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to cause the display apparatus to perform: (FIG 7; 0005, 0036) and configured to execute the instructions to cause the display apparatus to perform:
in response to a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file, obtaining one or more locations for resuming playing corresponding to one or more recorded files and one or more pieces of locating information for the one or more locations for resuming playing in the memory, wherein one of the one or more pieces of locating information comprises event information and a recording progress, the event information is obtained according to information from a program source of a television program corresponding to the recorded file, and the one or more pieces of locating information is generated by the display apparatus according to the event information obtained from the program source and the recording progress during recording of the television program; (FIG 3, 4; 0029-0032: broadcasting information from a broadcasting station is obtained to a PVR and recorded to the PVR. The PVR divides the broadcasting information/stream into sections/chapters. 0031 discloses information on the broadcasting data is recorded in Electronic Program Guide and the EPG is transmitted with broadcasting stream. Thus, information on each scene is stored at the same time the broadcasting data is recorded, so the chaptering can be performed scene by scene by using the information. Each chapters contains a start point in time and end point in time. The information on each chapter is displayed on the time-shifting user interface.(e.g. FIG 3) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the generated chapter information that includes the start and end time of each chapter is also stored in a form of a memory. Furthermore, the chaptering of the broadcasting data is displayed in the time-shifting interface for the user to select a chapter. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized in order to display the interface, a command had to be issued to display the interface for displaying the resegmented broadcast stream)
generating the interface for processing the recorded file and presenting the interface for processing the recorded file on the display, wherein the interface for processing the recorded file comprises a first recorded file control, and the first recorded file control is configured to present a location for resuming playing for a first recorded file and the event information in the locating information for the first recorded file; (FIG 3-5; 0032-0033: interface is presented of the recorded broadcast data which comprises the generated chapters of the broadcast data along with its start times. User can select a chapter using the input unit)
and in response to a command for displaying an event in the first recorded file, (0032-0033: go to a chapter) generating one or more event controls corresponding to one or more pieces of locating information in the first recorded file,…selecting a first event control by default, wherein the first event control among the one or more event controls is configured to skip to a first recording progress corresponding to the first event control for playing a portion of the first recorded file from the first recording progress, (0009, 0032, 0033, 0036: user search commands to jump (skips) to a new chapter, form of generated event controls)and the one or more pieces of location information in the first recorded file comprises a piece of locating information for the location for resuming playing for the first recorded file and one or more pieces of locating information for one or more events in the first recorded file.(FIG 3,5; 0033: chapter information for each chapter has start points that can be identified when a chapter is selected for playback)
As stated above, Han discloses an input unit (form of a remote controller (FIG 7; 0018, 0036) that allows the user to control the selection of chapter selecting. In addition, 0009 discloses the input unit allows the user to perform a forward and a backward search. One of a skilled artisan would have realized it’s common for a remote controller to have a backward button/key and forward button/key in order for a user to perform backward or forward searching. 0018 discloses the move a reproduction point in a unit of a chapter in response to a chapter search command when the chapter search command is received through the input unit. 0019 discloses the input unit is able to indicate a value for setting the number of chapters to be generated. 0036 disclose the user using the control unit to changes the chapter interval and controls the chapter search for the AV data. Therefore, based on the input unit being used to perform a number of functions within the time-shifting interface, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention would have realized that the input unit is a form a remote controller having a number of buttons (or keys) that would allow the user to perform these functions as explained above. Using a remote controller to watch and interact would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing convenience, allowing you to easily adjust volume, change channels, and navigate menus from a distance and offers a superior, tactile experience
Furthermore, Hans discloses a plurality of event controls (0009, 0018, 0032, 0033, 0036) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose presenting the one or more event controls on the display. However, Stechschulte et al discloses a displaying a plurality of event controls, to control a video from a source such as a TV service, wherein a control includes previous video/chapter and next video/chapter which skips back to the previous chapter or skips to the next chapter, respectively. (FIG 5D, 0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited with the disclosed video control features of Stechschulte et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of
enhancing user experience, accessibility, engagement by providing direct, intuitive management of media and ensuring a customizable and accessible viewing experience.
As per dependent claim 2, Han discloses generating one or more event controls of a first type corresponding to the one or more pieces of locating information generated according to information from the program source corresponding to the first recorded file (Note: “first type” is not defined by the language of the claim or in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the BRI of the term “first type” can be applied.) (0033: discloses a next chapter event control (form of a first type). However, Hans fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more event controls of the first type is configured with a first identifier visible on the display. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Stechschulte et al discloses wherein each of the one or more event controls of the first type is configured with a first identifier visible on the display. (the next chapter control has its own visible identifier (e.g.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
button)(FIG 5D; 0034)
As per dependent claim 3, Claim 3 recites similar limitations as in Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Han discloses generating one or more event controls of a second type corresponding to the one or more pieces of locating information generated according to information from the program source corresponding to the first recorded file (Note: “second type” is not defined by the language of the claim or in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the BRI of the term “second type” can be applied.) (0033: discloses a previous chapter event control (form of a second type). However, Hans fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more event controls of the second type is configured with a second identifier visible on the display. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Stechschulte et al discloses wherein each of the one or more event controls of the first type is configured with a first identifier visible on the display. (the next chapter control has its own visible identifier (e.g.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
button)(FIG 5D; 0034)
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 recites similar limitations as in Claims 2 and 3 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Stechschulte et al discloses causing the display to present the one or more event controls of the first type and the one or more event controls of the second type. (FIG 5D; 0034: .
PNG
media_image1.png
225
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
button and
PNG
media_image1.png
225
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
button displayed)
As per dependent claim 7, Han discloses receiving a selection command for the first event control among the one or more event controls for the first recorded file; and in response to the selection command for the first event control, playing a portion of the first recorded file from the recording progress corresponding to the first event control. (0032-0033)
As per dependent claim 8, Han discloses wherein the event information comprises one or more of: channel information of a channel to which an event belongs, program information of a program to which the event belongs, an event name, start time of the event, a time duration of the event, a running state of the event, or detailed description of the event. (FIG 3, 5; 0033: start time of each chapter is disclosed)
As per dependent claim 9 , Han discloses monitoring event information from the program source of the television program; determining whether the event information received corresponds to the television program being recorded by the display apparatus; in response to the event information received corresponding to the television program being recorded, obtaining a recording progress of the television program, and generating a piece of locating information comprising the event information received and the recording progress obtained; and in response to the event information not corresponding to the television program being recorded, not processing the event information received. (0031: In the case of broadcasting data, information on the broadcasting data is recorded in Electronic Program Guide and the EPG is transmitted with broadcasting stream. The information on each scene is stored at the same time the broadcasting data is recorded, so the chaptering can be performed scene by scene by using the information....The chaptering is performed as a background process while recording and reproducing the AV data. Thus, chaptering occurs as long the broadcasting is being record (on the PVR, see 0005-0006. One of a skilled artisan in the art would have realized that if broadcast is not being recorded, then chaptering would not be occurring)
As per independent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale
As per dependent claims 12-14, 17-19, Claims 12-14, 17-19 recites similar limitations as in claims 2-4, 7-9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in further view of Stechschulte et al in further view of Bove, JR. et al (US 20230376189, EFD 5/23/2022)
As per dependent claim 5, Han discloses in response to an operation for adjusting a progress via a progress bar control from a user, obtaining a target starting location corresponding to the operation, and updating a starting location on the progress bar control from the location for resuming playing to the target starting location; obtaining locating information associated with the target starting location; and (FIG 4-5; 0032-0033: reproduction point is moved to a particular start time of a selected chapter based on input) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose presenting an event control corresponding to the locating information associated with the target starting location in a highlighted manner. However, Bove, JR. et al discloses presenting an event control corresponding to the locating information associated with the target starting location in a highlighted manner. (FIG 1, 8A-C; 0021, 0025, 0029,0035, 0098-0100: the selected chapter is highlighted in a particular manner on the navigation bar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited with the disclosed video control features of Bove JR et al since it would have provided the benefit of allows granular frame-by-frame navigation over a shorter time interval thereby allowing a user to advance to a desired point in the video with a single frame accuracy. (0020)
As per dependent claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar limitations as in claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in further view of Stechschulte et al in further view of Garrison et al (20140281985, 2014)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose filtering the one or more pieces of locating information for a match piece of locating information whose recording progress is before the location for resuming playing in time and has a minimum difference from the location for resuming playing among one or more differences between the location for resuming playing and recording progresses of some pieces of the one or more pieces of locating information before the location for resuming playing in time. However, Garrison et al discloses indexing a video recording into segments/chapter comprising a particular tagged object (e.g. actor or car). Each time the user selects a chapter/scene jump comprising the tagged object, that next (selected) scene or chapter will start a few seconds before the actual chapter/scene having the object appears (0017-0019)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited with the disclosed video control features of Garrison et al since it would have provided the benefit of enhancing a user's viewing experience include providing new opportunities for viewing information. (0006)
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in further view of Stechschulte et al in further view of Cheron et al (US20160021432, 2016)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose upon receiving a first event information table (EIT) from the program source for a first time, storing the first EIT locally in the display apparatus; upon receiving a second EIT following the first EIT, determining whether event information in the second EIT is the same as historical event information in the first EIT; in response to the event information in the second EIT being same as the historical event information in the first EIT, not processing the second EIT receive, and in response to the event information in the second EIT being different from the historical event information in the first EIT, storing the second EIT locally and generating an event update notification associated with the event information in the second EIT. However, Cheron discloses The SI acquisition unit continuously monitors the tables that are contained in the services received, and updates the EPG database when needed. When a user tunes to an AV service ‘S1’ transported by transport stream ‘TS1’, the SI acquisition unit stores the EPG information comprised in the EIT ‘actual’ (30) in the database. When the user changes channel to AV service ‘S2’ in transported by transport stream ‘TS2’, the SI acquisition unit receives “new” information for the AV service ‘S1’, that is comprised in an EIT ‘other’ table (34) in ‘TS2’, and it updates the information related to AV service ‘S1’ in the EPG database. Thus, the information comprised in the database with regard to service ‘S1’, acquired from table ‘actual’ of ‘TS1’, is now overwritten by the information related to S1 in the EIT ‘other’ of ‘S2’. When the ‘actual’ table (30) of ‘TS1’ comprises the same information as the ‘other’ table of ‘TS2’, this means unnecessary processing for table acquisition and unnecessary database updating. (0033) Thus, Cheron disclose a first EIT which is locally stored and receiving a second EIT. If the two EITs are different, then overwritten the previous stored EIT with the new EIT. No changes are made if the EIT are the same.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited with the disclosed video control features of Garrison et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of ensure that TV viewers receive accurate, real-time schedule information in their Electronic Program Guide (EPG) along with preventing issues with recording.
As per dependent claim 20, Claim 20 recites similar limitations as in claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172