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 Applicant’s amendment filed on 16 June 2026 and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 9 April 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1 and 11 were amended.
All 112 and art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed on 6/16/26, has not been entered because it fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii). 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) states “A replacement section with markings to show all changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike through cannot be easily perceived.” The replacement abstract did not contain any markups indicating the added or deleted subject matter as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) (see MPEP 714). Furthermore, the replacement abstract is not substantially rewritten and the amended abstract still bears resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract; therefore, the markups as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) are still required. In addition, the amended abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. 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. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Therefore, the abstract filed on 5/15/2024 is viewed as the current abstract. In regards to the abstract filed 5/15/24, The abstract of the disclosure remains objected for the following reasons: the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. 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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation(s) of Claim 1 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendments.
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 Optimum (“Your guide to DVR”, copyrighted 2017, 16 pages) 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 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, 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 and 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 according to the recording progress obtained 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.
In addition, Hans fails to specifically explicitly disclose receiving a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file. However, Optimum discloses receiving a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file (pg 10-11: discloses a command being issue that results in the interface shown in pg10 being displayed that allows the user to interact with stored record media. The user can select the stored media to play it: from being played from the beginning, at a current location of a current in progress recording of a stored media, or a previous spot of a recorded media that the user left off while previously watching. Thus, Optimum discloses obtaining locations for resuming playback of recorded files and presenting an interface for resuming playback at the obtained locations)
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 Optimum since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage provide efficient storage management, quick playback retrieval, and flexible viewing control. These tools let users quickly find, manage, and review stored content without hassle.
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 Optimum 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 Optimum 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 Optimum 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, regarding Applicant’s arguments to the abstract/specification objection, the Examiner respectfully states the amendment to the abstract was not entered because it fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii). 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) states “A replacement section with markings to show all changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.” The replacement abstract did not contain any markups indicating the added or deleted subject matter as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) (see MPEP 714). Furthermore, the replacement abstract is not substantially rewritten and the amended abstract still bears resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract; therefore, the markups as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) are still required. In addition, the amended abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. 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. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Therefore, the abstract filed on 5/15/2024 is viewed as the current abstract. In regard to the abstract filed 5/15/24, The abstract of the disclosure remains objected for the following reasons: the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. 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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Therefore, the objection to the specification remains for this reason.
On pages 13-15, in regards to the 103 art rejection of independent Claims 1 and 11, in summary, Applicant argues the cited art, particularly Han, does not teach the amended limitation “receiving a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file, and 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 according to the recording progress obtained during recording of the television program” First (Argument A), Applicant argues that Han does not teach the limitation “"receiving a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file”. Second, (Argument B), Applicant argues that Han does not teach the limitation/subject matter “obtaining "locations for resuming playing" and "locating information for resuming playing in the memory," and that "locating information is generated according to the recording progress obtained during recording of the television program." Applicant argues that Han merely discloses: dividing the stored AV data into chapters according to a set number of chapters provided by the user. Thus, Han's dividing/chaptering conducted by the AV device is unable (and no need) to provide the claimed "recording progress" obtained during the recording of the television program. Third, (Argument C), Applicant argues that Han does not teach the limitation/subject matter “"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," Applicant states that there no needed to generate and display any interface for processing the recorded file because Han discloses a time-shifting interface and segmented navigation. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In regard to Argument A, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the cited art; therefore, Applicant’s argument(s) is moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
In regards to Arguments B and C, in summary, the Examiner respectfully Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the argued claim limitation(s), the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states Han does not teach the limitations by referring a non-cited sections from Han, merely summarizing the Han reference by reciting some sections from the Background of the Invention, and merely concludes that Han does not teach the limitation(s). Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the argued claim limitations are different from the teachings of Han by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Miura is specifically different from Applicant’s invention. Applicant merely argues that one or more sections of Han does not teach the argued limitation without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. In other words, Applicant argues does not argue how the cited sections (i.e. 0029-0033) of Han does not teach the argued limitations based on the current language. Thus, Applicant’s arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state Applicant's invention, other than stating each reference, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitations.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language of the limitation(s) (in Argument B) “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, … 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 according to the recording progress obtained during recording of the television program” is broad on a number of elements. The Examiner respectfully states that term “one or more locations for resuming playing” is not define or limited in anyway. In other words, the language is silent on how exactly to properly interpreted the term “one or more locations”. The language does not clarify or explain what exactly the locations for resuming playback or how exactly these locations are obtained. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, while the language does disclose the “locating information” is explained further to indicate the “locating information” comprises “event information and a record progress, the event information is obtained according to information from a program source of a television program corresponding to the recorded file”, the language is broad on how to interpret these terms.” The Examiner respectfully states that term “event information” is merely information of a TV program according to the language; however, does not state what information of the TV program the event information refers to. Therefore, the language is silent and unclear what event information the “location information” actually contains. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the Examiner states that the language “recording progress” is not define or limited in anyway. In other words, the language is silent on how exactly to properly interpreted the term “recording progress”. The language does not state what the recording progress is associated with in any way. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. In addition, in regard to the subject matter/limitation “locating information is generated by the display apparatus according to the event information obtained from the program source and according to the recording progress obtained during recording of the television program”, the language is also broad. The language does not explain or clarify how exactly the locating information is generated for display or how the locating information is generated according to undefined recording progress. The language is silent on how exactly the locating information is generated according to the recording progress. Thus, the language merely states the locating information is generated according a recording progress but provides no further details or clarification how this is perform. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language of the limitation(s) (in Argument C) “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” is broad on a number of elements. The language merely states generating the interface for processing the record file; however, the language is silent on how the interface is generated. The language does not clarify or explain how the interface is generated exactly for display. Furthermore, the language merely states that the displayed generated interface comprises a first recorded file control that is configured to present a location for resuming playback for the record file. The language is silent on the details of the control itself other than it presents a location for resuming playback. The language provides no additional details on how the control is presented exactly and how a location is displayed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the language states that the interface comprises the event information, but is completely silent on how exactly the event information is presented. The language does not clarify or explain how the event information is displayed on the interface in any way. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
The Examiner respectfully discloses that the previous office action provided a detailed explanation with reasons on why Han taught the argued limitation(s) and/or subject matter using cited paragraphs not argued by the Applicant. It was noted that the Examiner explained how Han taught the argued subject matter/limitations of obtaining "locations for resuming playing" and "locating information for resuming playing in the memory," and that "locating information is generated according to the recording progress obtained during recording of the television program" and the generating step as written. Thus, the Examiner respectfully states it appears that Applicant did not follow the Examiner's complete analysis and explanation of how Han taught these argued limitations of multiple training operations. Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Han disclose:
in response to a command for entering an interface for processing a recorded file and 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 according to the recording progress obtained 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)
Therefore, the cited art teaches the argued subject matter/limitations of claims 1 and 11.
On page 16, in regards to 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, Applicant merely states that Han does not disclose: in response to a command for displaying an event in the first recorded file, generating one or more event controls corresponding to one or more pieces of locating information in the first recorded file, presenting the one or more event controls on the display, and 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, 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. However, the Examiner disagrees.
After consideration of Applicants arguments of claims 1 and 11 of this particular subject matter/limitation(s), the Examiner respectfully states Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive to overcome the cited rejections and respectfully direct the Applicant to the rejection explained above for the reasons why the claim remains rejected under the same grounds of rejection.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
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.
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights