DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
According to paper filed December 5th 2025, claims 1-23 are pending for examination with a January 25th 2022 priority date under 35 USC §111(a) & 35 USC §119(a)-(d) or (f).
By way of the present Amendment, claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-22 are amended. Claims 3, 11, and 19 are previously canceled. No claim is added. Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and further in view of Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews.
Claim 1
“in response to launching a client application, determining an initialized playing configuration according to a preset video playing configuration corresponding to a current user account of the client application, and playing a video in a player interface according to the initialed playing configuration” Liu [0080] teaches current status of video playing or not playing, and Liu [0132] teaches displaying content in the main interface in connection with displaying content corresponding to response information in a presenting interface, after the presenting interface is triggered, a server can be used to given response information as feedback for displaying corresponding content;
“wherein the present video playing configuration comprises at least one of a video caption on/off configuration, a video content or title translation on/off configuration, a video multiple-speed playing configuration, or a video sound on/off configuration” Liu [0096] teaches video data displayed in the screen/interface, which can be adjusted based on user preferences, user settings, however, Liu does not spell out the caption, said feature is taught in Andrews, Andrews [0115] teaches a supplemented video, an ON/OFF button, which
allows a video caption displayed when the ON/OFF button is set to ON;
“presenting, during playing of the video, a video playing setting panel in response to a user’s trigger operation for the player interface and providing a preset video playing configuration setting button in the video playing setting panel” Pjanovic p.9 lines 31-33 teaches that a possible setting is a default activated and a default selected button, which settings are typically performed when a period of time for a user to activate a button and a time for selecting a button by a user expire; the “player interface” is construed as on screen user interface and cited accordingly;
“updating the video playing configuration according to a result of a user operation on the preset video playing configuration setting button; playing the video according to the updated video playing configuration ” Liu [0123] teaches updating video data, actor information, and completion status, etc., and
Pjanovic p.10 l.4-14 teaches that a number of commands associated with the buttons in the interactive graphics stream, these commands include some of the commands provided for the movie objects, such as the set stream command, also some commands and settings are possible, such as branch to play item, jump to another play item in current play list and terminate playing;
“in response to switching to play a different video in the player interface, playing the different video according to the updated video playing configuration before the client application terminates” Liu [0132] teaches the playing component in the main interface can be used in connection with switching to playing the video data corresponding to the response information, and
Pjanovic p.10 l.4-14 teaches some settings are provided for the movie objects, such as the set stream command, also some commands and settings are possible, such as branch to play item, jump to another play item in current play list and terminate playing;
“in response to restarting the client application after the client application terminates, playing a subsequent video
according to a default video playing configuration” Liu [0096] teaches video data displayed in the screen interface. Lack of particular definition given for “default video playing configuration” in the Specification of the present invention, default configuration is construed as “default status”, “default caption on/off”, or simply the updated configuration, and cited accordingly.
Liu, Pjanovic, and Andrews disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button.
Claim 6
“determining a caption displaying configuration of the video according to a current playing configuration of the video; and providing the video caption on/off configuration setting button in the video playing setting panel according to the caption displaying configuration” Andrews [0016][0115] Figure 11 teaches receiving and storing caption information in a first data storage area, and an ON/OFF button 626 that allows a video viewer to turn ON or OFF the hotspots in the supplemented video 650.
Claims 9 & 17
Claims 9 and 17 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 1.
Claims 14 & 22
Claims 14 and 22 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 6.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews, and further in view of Peng (US 2020/0169687), hereinafter Peng.
Claim 2
“in response to a playing configuration setting item being in an on configuration, the preset video playing configuration setting button being an off button of a corresponding playing status setting item” Peng [0042] teaches a paused playing button, which inherently discloses the “on and off” button as claimed;
“in response to a playing configuration setting item being in an off configuration, the preset video playing configuration setting button being an on button of a corresponding playing configuration setting item” Peng [0042] teaches a touch status of a video playing button, the video is playing when a paused button is touched and canceled the pause.
Liu, Pjanovic, Andrews, and Peng disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. Peng is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented videos which include interactive features. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button; further, Liu does not spell out the “playing configuration setting button”, said feature is taught in Peng. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Peng into Liu to enhance its video playing function and with an easy to operate playing on/off button.
Claims 10 & 18
Claims 10 and 18 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 2.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews, and further in view of Hines (US 10,249,212), hereinafter Hines.
Claim 4
“prompting one or more of attribute information corresponding to the preset video playing configuration setting button in the player interface, in response to a first time interaction with an area in which the playing configuration exhibition content is and a mode of the first time interaction being different from a trigger mode for triggering the video playing setting panel” Hines abstract teaches providing attribute prompts, which is different from triggering the video playing setting panel, e.g., gestures (see ¶[0045] of the Specification of the present application).
Liu, Pjanovic, Andrews, and Hines disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. Hines is analogous art because it is in the field of providing user attribute prompts and wearable attribute tracking device. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button; further, Liu does not spell out the “prompting attribute information”, said feature is taught in Hines. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “attribute information prompt” feature of Hines into Liu to enhance its attribute information collecting and storage functions with an easy to operate prompt for attribute information.
Claims 12 & 20
Claims 12 and 20 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 4.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews, and further in view of deCharms et al. (US 2016/0005320), hereinafter deCharms.
Claim 5
“presenting corresponding operation prompt information according to a cumulative number of times in which user operations are applied to the preset video playing configuration setting button” deCharms [0202] teaches a score based on the user’s ability to do a task may also include the total number of correct versus incorrect instances of the user’s input, if the user attempts to press a button at a specific software-determined time on each cycle, the score may be determined using the total number of times that the user pressed the button within a given window of that timing.
Liu, Pjanovic, Andrews, and deCharms disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. deCharms is analogous art because it is in the field of presenting information and training and monitoring user, and therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button; further, Liu does not spell out the “a cumulative number of times that user operations applied to the setting button”, said feature is taught in deCharms. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “the total number of correct versus incorrect instances of the user’s input” feature of deCharms into Liu to enhance its presenting operational information functions with an easy to display total number of user’s inputs.
Claims 13 and 21
Claims 13 and 21 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 5.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews, and further in view of Enomoto (US 2006/0257109), hereinafter Enomoto.
Claim 7
“providing a video caption function setting button in a video posting page of the video; and determining caption setting parameters of the video according to an input on the video caption function setting button” Enomoto [0075] teaches a caption button that a user can select modes for captions and sounds, and a designation
window that allows the user to select a Japanese cation, English caption, or another language caption,
“wherein the caption setting parameters include one or more of a caption language and caption display rendering parameters” Enomoto [0075] teaches caption display parameters selection, such as RIGHT SCREEN VIEW and DETERMINE.
Liu, Pjanovic, Andrews, and Enomoto disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. Enomoto is analogous art because it is in the field of a multi-video display system capable of displaying mutually different multiple videos. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button; further, Liu does not spell out the “caption setting parameters of the video”, said feature is taught in Enomoto. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “a caption button for captions and sounds” feature of Enomoto into Liu to enhance its caption control functions with an easy to operate button for managing caption.
Claims 15 & 23
Claims 15 and 23 are each rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0152767), hereinafter Liu, in view of Pjanovic et al. (WO 2006/067684), hereinafter Pjanovic, and Andrews II et al. (US 2009/0276805), hereinafter Andrews, and further in view of Enomoto (US 2006/0257109), hereinafter Enomoto, and Yi et al. (EP 4087267), hereinafter Yi.
Claim 8
“prompting a video caption addition function in a preset mode during a first video posting process after updating of
a version of the client application playing the video” Yi [0022] teaches an automatic caption adjustment mode;
“switching, in response to a second trigger for the video caption addition function, to a caption setting interface,
and presenting one or more of preset caption language options and caption rendering parameter options for a user to select” Yi [0022] teaches a caption adjustment mode that when the user enters the setting interface to set the prompt dialog box to pop up again, and when the user selects the confirm button, a caption on the television interface is restored to a normal state, if the user does not respond within a fourth present time period, the prompt dialog box disappears automatically.
Liu, Pjanovic, Andrews, Enomoto, and Yi disclose analogous art. Pjanovic is analogous art because it is in the field of protection of content provided in media streams and to a portable storage medium, a media player, and signals. Andrews is analogous art because it is in the field of generation and playback of supplemented video which includes interactive features. Enomoto is analogous art because it is in the field of a multi-video display system capable of displaying mutually different multiple videos. Yi is analogous art because it is in the field of smart homes with a caption adjustment device. Liu does not spell out the “video caption on/off status” and “setting button” as recited above. These features are taught in Andrews and Pjanovic respectively. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “caption on/off” feature of Andrews into Liu to enhance its video playing function and further to incorporate the “setting button” feature of Pjanovic into Liu to enhance its information management functions with an easy operate user interface button; further, Liu does not spell out the “caption setting parameters of the video”, said feature is taught in Enomoto. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “a caption button for captions and sounds” feature of Enomoto into Liu to enhance its caption control functions with an easy to operate button for managing caption. Still further, Liu does not spell out the “video caption additional functions”, said feature is taught in Yi. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the “an automatic caption adjustment mode” feature of Yi into Liu to enhance its caption control functions with more than one language and video parameter options.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[t]his portion of Liu appears to describe a scenario where a video playing interface switches from a full-screen mode to a non-full screen mode during video playback. … the cited portion of Liu has nothing to do with whether a client application is restarted or not, and thus also has nothing to do with the configuration used to play a video after the client application is restarted. Therefore, Liu does not disclose or teach all elements of claim 1 as amended.” Said argument is not persuasive.
It is well known in the art that applications can be activated and deactivated as many times as a user prefers. Thus, the claimed “restarting” an application is construed and cited as start an application again. Further, there is no disclosure or discussion of how and when to switch from a full screen to a non-full screen display, vice versa, in the Liu reference. Evidently, applicant has misread the Liu reference.
Applicant provides no further discussion regarding the Pjanovic, Andrews, Peng, Hines, and deCharms, Enomoto, and Yi references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571)272-6088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, David Yi can be reached on 571-270-7519. 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 or 571-272-1000.
/Ruay Ho/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights