DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 8/7/2025.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are independent.
Claims 1, 9 and 11-13 are recently amended.
Claims 2 and 14 are previously canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 15-20 is/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.
Claims 1 and 12-13 recite “combined photographing control” that when triggered causes “displaying an image or a video photographed combined with a video”. Here, this is unclear because “combined photographing” is understood as a technique that doesn’t simply co-display an image with a video or co-display a first video with a second video, as claimed. Instead “combined photographing”, typically called “composite photography”, is the process of blending two or more separate photographs or image elements into a single, cohesive new image. Furthermore, claims 1 and 12-13 are unclear because something that is captured on “video” is not typically described as being “photographed”, since videography and photography are related, but are not the same. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to “combined photographing” including the co-displaying an image with a video or co-displaying a first video with a second video. Correction required.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 12-13 are unclear because the displaying of the “image” or “video” are described as “displaying…with a video played currently on a function page”. Here, it is unclear how this “function page” relates to the claimed “video playback page”. Since the “function page” is performing the function of playing a video, is the claimed “video playback page”? Is it a different page that is different from the “video playback page”? Otherwise, how does it relate to the “video playback page”? For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the function page is the video playback page. Correction required.
Claim 11 recites “the video processing method further comprises at least one of following”, which is followed only by “displaying a map around a location displayed by the positioning control on a function page corresponding to the positioning control, in response to a user triggering the positioning control”. The phrase "at least one" implies there could be one or more of a list of two or more items, so listing only one item makes it unclear if the claim intends only one item or if that there is a larger set of options. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to only “displaying a map around a location displayed by the positioning control on a function page corresponding to the positioning control, in response to a user triggering the positioning control”. Correction required.
Remaining Claims are also rejected as they depend on one of the claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 3, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Guggenberger; Nathan Leigh et al. (hereinafter Guggenberger – US 20230298629 A1) in view of Cordova; Gay (hereinafter Cordova – US 20120301111 A1) and further in view of Kleinerman; Michael et al. (hereinafter Kleinerman – US 20180367840 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Guggenberger teaches:
A video processing method, comprising:
displaying a […] detail page according to a preset display style, (“details” related to a video can be displayed to the user based on user interaction with sticker overlays on the video, ¶ 22, e.g., when a user clicks on a sticker, an overlay [according to a preset display style] including the details related to the video [detail page] is displayed, fig. 4D and ¶ 67. The overlays are “detail pages” as they display webpages loaded within the overlay, ¶ 50 )
in response to a first trigger operation on a preset […] area on a video playback page, (the abovementioned interaction on the sticker is performed on a video is herein interpreted as being “on a preset […] area” at least because the sticker is associated with a placement location of the sticker overlay on the screen, ¶ 42, and as can be seen in fig. 4C, the sticker, like “Bill Nye” sticker is overlay on the video itself, ¶ 43. Such interaction can be receive “while the video is playing” [on a video playback page], ¶ 22. As exemplified for the detail page above, ¶ 50, the video playback interface is implemented on a webpage. E.g., “opening links ‘to other applications or web browsers’”, ¶ 67 shows that both the detail page and the video playback interface are webpages of a first web browser.)
wherein […] information of a target video is presented on the preset […] area; (Inasmuch as the displayed sticker information, e.g., “Bill Nye” text, is associated and/or included in the video, ¶ 22 and fig 4C, it is herein it is broadly interpreted as being “information of a target video”. Also, it is interpreted that “target video” includes video presented, related to a video presented, or subject to being presented, on the playback page.)
and presenting an associated multimedia resource entry and at least one function link entry of the target video on the […] detail page, (Inasmuch as the additional information overlay [detail page] of the sticker [GUI 422] includes one or more links [424] activatable to present additional information, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, and such information may include videos, ¶¶ 29 and 72, at least one of the links for presenting a video is interpreted as being “an associated multimedia resource entry”, and at least one of the links for opening [i.e., a “function”] other applications or type of information, e.g., like drawings, photographs, etc., ¶¶ 67 and 72, is interpreted as being “at least one function link entry of the target video”)
wherein the associated multimedia resource entry is configured to trigger jumping from the […] detail page to a multimedia resource presentation page corresponding to the associated multimedia resource entry, (the context of the overlay changes when the link(s) 424 is activated and content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, at least because the context changes from information displayed in fig. 4D to “open” content of link(s) 424, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, it is interpreted as “jumping from the […] detail page to a multimedia resource presentation page corresponding to the associated multimedia resource entry”)
the multimedia resource presentation page is configured to present a multimedia resource associated with the target video, (the context of the overlay changes when the link(s) 424 is activated and content [like a video, i.e., a multimedia resource] related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D)
and the function link entry is configured to trigger jumping from the […] detail page to a function page corresponding to the function link entry (the context of the overlay changes [trigger jumping] when the link(s) 424 is activated application/content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D. The link and page opened and related to one or more application is also considered a “function link” and “function page”, in as much as applications, that can be opened using the link(s) 424 necessarily perform or associated with certain functions, as coded within the application. E.g., searching for and displaying information, in the case of Wikipedia which is an example of one of the application links 424, see fig. 4D)
wherein the function link entry comprises a combined photographing control (when the link(s) 424 is activated application/content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, and because these stickers may be photographs or video, ¶ 29, and they are displayed together with the video by being overlaid on the video, ¶ 67, the links 424 are herein interpreted as “comprises a combined photographing control”. As explained in 112b rejection above, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to “combined photographing” including the co-displaying an image with a video or co-displaying a first video with a second video. Correction required.)
and the video processing method further comprises at least one of following: displaying an image or a video photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control, in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control. (when the link(s) 424 is activated [in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control] application/content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, and because these stickers may be photographs or video, ¶ 29, and they are displayed together with the video by being overlaid on the video, ¶ 67, the content displayed by activating of the links 424 are herein interpreted as “displaying an image or a video photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control”. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that the options are “an image photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control, in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control” and “a video photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control, in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control”. As explained in 112b rejection above, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the function page is the video playback page.)
Guggenberger further teaches that stickers provide the viewer with additional information and/or details related to the video, ¶ 22.
Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Cordova teaches:
that the detail page is a “title” detail page or that the information of the target video is “title” information (a player [playback interface] with a sticker that is used to display an informative title of a video being streamed/played by the player, ¶¶ 39 and 41 and fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include that the detail page is a “title” detail page or that the information of the target video is “title” information, as taught by Cordova.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to result in a richer and informative method, Cordova ¶ 41 and Guggenberger ¶ 22. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implementing the sticker of Cordova to one or more of the stickers of Guggenberger would result in a more “informative” method, and by adapting the type of information presented on the sticker to include title information and additional information about the title after interaction with the sticker.
Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Kleinerman teaches:
wherein the title description information of the target video is truncated and presented on the preset title area, (in traditional electronic program guides, titles are presented in a truncated format, ¶ 18)
and the video processing method further comprises: presenting the title description information completely on the title detail page (a complete title is presented on another user interface window [title detail page], ¶ 18).
(may have to close the pop-up window to return to the display of the electronic programing guide [EPG], ¶ 18)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Guggenberger to include wherein the title description information of the target video is truncated and presented on the preset title area, and the video processing method further comprises: presenting the title description information completely on the title detail page, as taught by Kleinerman.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility of the method by making it more appropriate for displaying information on devices with small displays, such as mobile devices, Kleinerman ¶ 18. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that even though Kleinerman seems to attempt to reduce the high amount of interactions received on typical discussion is of a traditional EPG, ¶ 18, a person having ordinary skill in the art reading Kleinerman would still be motivated to implement the concept regarding the interaction related to a traditional EPG [displaying of truncated title area and untruncated titles in different interface windows], if they weren’t concerned with reducing the amount of interactions.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Guggenberger, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the title description information truncated and presented is key information of the target video, and the key information is a part of the title description information of the target video. (Kleinerman teaches the information is “key information” because it is the title description information that is truncated is the title itself and the user has “to trigger another…window…display a complete title”, ¶ 18)
Independent Claims 12 and 13:
Claims 12 and 13 are directed to a storage medium and processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 15 is directed to a processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claim 3, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), and Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Grossman, James (hereinafter Grossman – US 20020169853 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Guggenberger, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the preset display style comprises a panel, (see panel with header 406, icons 424 and content 22, fig. 4D)
Guggenberger further teaches that stickers include polls to ask viewer their opinions about videos, ¶ 61. As such it is herein interpreted that the polls are displayed within the stickers,
However, Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Grossman teaches:
and comment information of the target video is also presented on the title detail page. (opinion polls may in the form of comments received from consumers, ¶ 34)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include and comment information of the target video is also presented on the title detail page, as taught by Grossman.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the features of the method by affording the user to share their opinions with the world, Grossman ¶ 43.
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 16 is directed to a processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claim 4, and is rejected using similar rationale(s)
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1) and Grossman (US 20020169853 A1), as applied to claims 4 and 16 above, and further in view of Li; Anda et al. (hereinafter Li – US 20240265648 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Guggenberger further teaches:
wherein the panel comprises a panel displayed by sliding […]. (the user can interact with stickers by sliding, ¶¶ 22 and 50)
Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Li teaches:
that the sliding direction is an “up from a bottom of the video playback page” (the selection of a sticker may be done by a slide “up” operation, ¶ 60. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that because the user may place the sticker anywhere they wish, as discussed above, so at least in some embodiments of Guggenberger, the sticker would be at “a bottom of the video playback page”, so, in implementing Li, the sticker would be slid “up from a bottom of the video playback page”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include that the sliding direction is an “up from a bottom of the video playback page”, as taught by Li.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality of the method by allowing sliding in a known and effect direction for indicating a selection, Li ¶ 60.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 17 is directed to a processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claim 5, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1), and Grossman (US 20020169853 A1), as applied to claims 4 and 16 above, and further in view of Amerige; Brian Daniel et al. (hereinafter Amerige – US 20160018981 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Amerige teaches:
wherein the displaying of the title detail page, as well as positioning and presenting the comment information on the title detail page, occur in response to a third trigger operation on a comment control on the video playback page (when a user input is received on a feedback region [comment control], a comment popover is opened over content, ¶¶ 135-136 and 191 and figs. 4Y and 4Z. As mentioned in 112(b) rejection section, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to “positioning and presenting the comment information on the title detail page”, after “displaying the title detail page”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Guggenberger to include wherein the displaying of the title detail page, as well as positioning and presenting the comment information on the title detail page, occur in response to a trigger third operation on a comment control on the video playback page , as taught by Amerige.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality of the system by using a known and effective way of presenting a content comments to viewers, Amerige .
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Amerige further teaches:
further comprising, after positioning and presenting the comment information on the title detail page: presenting an associated multimedia resource entry and at least one function link entry of the target video on the title detail page, in response to a preset fourth trigger operation on the title detail page. (after displaying the comment popover, an application dismisses the comment popover and displays and image [e.g., 408-2] that was displayed previous to the comment popover, ¶ 191 and figs. 4Y-4Z. )
Claims 18-19:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claims 18-19 are directed to a processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claims 6-7, respectively, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), and Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Dong; Feng et al. (hereinafter Dong – US 20220214800 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Dong teaches:
wherein the preset display style comprises a mask layer, (¶ 25)
and the displaying the title detail page according to the preset display style, in response to the first trigger operation on the preset title area on the video playback page comprises: displaying the title detail page in a style of the mask layer on the video playback page, in response to the first trigger operation on the preset title area on the video playback page, (in response to a switching operation, a display is transitioned from a parent page to a child page in form of a masked layer, ¶ 25.)
wherein the mask layer is of a preset transparency (¶¶ 22-24)
and covers the video playback page, (a parent page is entirely covered by the child page, ¶ 282 and fig. 6D)
and the mask layer supports a longitudinal sliding operation, in response to hidden display content being provided on the title detail page. (when there is a plurality of pages [hidden display content] the user may slide leftward or rightward to transition between the pages, ¶ 208).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include wherein the preset display style comprises a mask layer, and the displaying the title detail page according to the preset display style, in response to the first trigger operation on the preset title area on the video playback page comprises: displaying the title detail page in a style of the mask layer on the video playback page, in response to the first trigger operation on the preset title area on the video playback page, wherein the mask layer is of a preset transparency and covers the video playback page, and the mask layer supports a longitudinal sliding operation, in response to hidden display content being provided on the title detail page, as taught by Dong.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the method by that switching between parent and child pages better meets user expectation, provides a better effect, and improves user experience, e.g., by eliminating/reducing ghost image effect of the parent page, Dong ¶¶ 6-7.
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Dong further teaches:
further comprising, after the displaying the title detail page in the style of the mask layer on the video playback page, in response to the first trigger operation on the preset title area on the video playback page: closing the title detail page, in response to a third trigger operation on a blank area on the mask layer or a preset closing control, or in response to a preset pull-down operation on the mask layer. (a back button [preset closing control] may be used to “switch” back to a parent level, ¶ 343. Herein, this is interpreted as closing the child/mask layer at least because the layer can be considered as being “off”, because it is no longer displayed)
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 20 is directed to a processing device for accomplishing the steps in the method of claim 8, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), and Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biniak; Bryan (hereinafter Biniak – US 20100293575 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Biniak teaches:
wherein the associated multimedia resource entry comprises a control corresponding to a video collection, the video collection comprises a plurality of videos, and the multimedia resource presentation page comprises a presentation page of the video collection (a system for associating primary content to secondary content, ¶ 37, wherein secondary content is collected and presented to the users may include links to YouTube and Hulu [video collection], ¶ 64 and figs. 1 and 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include wherein the associated multimedia resource entry comprises a control corresponding to a video collection, the video collection comprises a plurality of videos, and the multimedia resource presentation page comprises a presentation page of the video collection, as taught by Biniak.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by providing richer content descriptions, Biniak ¶ 23.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (US 20230298629 A1), Cordova (US 20120301111 A1), and Kleinerman (US 20180367840 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chatzinikos; Achillefs et al. (hereinafter Chatzinikos – US 20150242767 A1).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Guggenberger does not appear to expressly teach, but Chatzinikos teaches:
herein the function link entry comprises a positioning control, and the video processing method further comprises at least one of following:
displaying a map around a location displayed by the positioning control on a function page corresponding to the positioning control, in response to a user triggering the positioning control; (a switch to image mode selection is received, such that a video, e.g., an aerially taken video corresponding to a user-selected position/point on a map [“positioning control”] is played back, Abstract, ¶¶ 8-9, 33-35, figs. 2-3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guggenberger to include wherein the function link entry comprises at least one of a positioning control or a combined photographing control, and the video processing method further comprises at least one of following: displaying a map around a location displayed by the positioning control on a function page corresponding to the positioning control, in response to a user triggering the positioning control, as taught by Chatzinikos.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionality and versatility of the method to make it applicable to travel planning for easy planning and for enhancing a travel experience for customers, Chatzinikos ¶¶ 2 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive and/or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection above.
First, the applicant alleges that “combined photographing” language that was in claim 11 and added to claim 1, was admitted by the examiner as not being taught by Guggenberger, and that the same is not taught be the other references. See Remarks Pages 13-16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The interpretation of “combined photographing” has been modified, as required by the new claim language, and the lack of clarity it has introduced. See 112(b) rejection above.
As explained in 103 rejection above, Guggenberger teaches when the link(s) 424 is activated application/content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, and because these stickers may be photographs or video, ¶ 29, and they are displayed together with the video by being overlaid on the video, ¶ 67, the links 424 are herein interpreted as “comprises a combined photographing control”. As explained in 112b rejection above, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to “combined photographing” including the co-displaying an image with a video or co-displaying a first video with a second video.
As explained in 103 rejection above, Guggengerger teaches “and the video processing method further comprises at least one of following: displaying an image or a video photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control, in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control” (when the link(s) 424 is activated [in response to a user triggering the combined photographing control] application/content related to the link opens as an overlay on the video, ¶ 67 and fig. 4D, and because these stickers may be photographs or video, ¶ 29, and they are displayed together with the video by being overlaid on the video, ¶ 67, the content displayed by activating of the links 424 are herein interpreted as “displaying an image or a video photographed combined with a video played currently on a function page corresponding to the combined photographing control”)
Second, the applicant traverses the prior Official Notice, in regards to “clicking on a blank area of a page is a well-known way to close a page or window” by simply stating that they disagree, Remarks, Page 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, based on the 5 references shown in previous office action and reproduced below as evidence. Although the concept has been removed from claim 1, it has been added to claim 9. The concept was added to claim 9, as an optional feature, and will no longer be discussed in this office action.
Third, the applicant alleges patentability of the remaining claims based on the above arguments, Remarks Page 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons presented above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Geller; Adam Joseph et al. US 8984405 B1, pertinent to at least claim 1 for displaying a detail page, resource entry and function link entry, fig. 11.
Kim; Deok-ho et al. US 20160308794 A1, pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing ‘Upon receiving a user input of selecting the title 2050, the device of the sender may display detailed information about the movie “Mad Max”’, ¶ 265 and fig. 20C.
Englebrecht; Pirow et al. US 20100323763 A1, pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing ‘At any time during playback of a media stream, the user can obtain programme details (step 7.8) for example to get a summary of the programme name and the content, or interact (step 7.9) in which case a web page is launched enabling web-based information relevant to the current programme to be acquired’, ¶ 86 and fig. 7.
Tily; Harry US 20230115575 A1, pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing ‘system 300 may determine that a smaller home card may include abbreviated content (e.g., text, graphs, etc.), be reduced to a title with a “click to expand” user interface element, or both’, ¶ 117 and fig. 3.
Davis; Bruce et al. US 5559548 A, pertinent to at least claim 1 for disclosing “FIG. 11b is an example of how current electronic program guide channel systems truncate program titles”, col 5:6-8 and fig. 11b.
The following references are pertinent to claim 9 as evidence that closing an electronic document/page/window based on interaction on a blank area of a page is “well known” concept of:
Wei; Ling et al. US 20240193352 A1 (¶ 46)
Li; Hangui et al. US 20160274749 A1 (¶ 113)
Quan; Wei US 20190215372 A1 (¶ 82)
Lin; Xiaolong US 20220019324 A1 (¶ 67)
Wang; Yilun et al. US 20240340370 A1 (¶ 14)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171