DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 9 August 2024, the preliminary amendment filed on 12 August 2024, and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 24 October 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-15 were originally filed on 8/9/24.
Claims 12 and 15 were cancelled on 8/12/24.
Claims 16-22 were added on 8/12/24.
Claims 1-11,13-14, and 16-22 are pending. Claims 1, and 13-14 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for CN202210124167.3, filed 2/10/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 8/9/24 have been entered and accepted.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 8/9/24 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: “An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied.” Both versions of the substitute specification filed on 8/9/24 were labeled as “Substitute Specification – Marked Up”. Thus, a clean version indicated as a Clean version was not supplied. In addition, a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter was not provided. Note: The preliminary amendment filed on 8/12/24 indicated that substitute specification was filed on that day with a provided statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter; however, no substitute specification meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(c) was filed on 8/12/24.
The amendment to Abstract filed on 8/12/24 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the subject matter/limitations “A media item display method applied to a target terminal, comprising: in response to a first media item comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition; in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition, displaying a preset identifier on a playing screen of the first media item; in response to a triggering acting on the preset identifier, displaying at least one second media item, wherein the at least one second media item is at least one media item associated with the first preset object, which is determined based on associated information of the first media item.” Claim 1 was amended on 8/12/24 in the preliminary amendment (3 days after the filing of the original claims) changing all appearances/instances of term/element “video” to “media item”. However, Applicant’s specification has no support for the use of the term/element “media item” instead of “video”. In addition, Applicant’s specification does not use or moment the term “media item” anywhere. While a video is a form of a media item, a media item encompasses more than just a video, e.g. audio. Applicant’s specification does provide an embodiment that a media item OTHER than a video is used. Thus, Applicant specification does not support the following embodiments: A “non-video item” display method applied to a target terminal, comprising: in response to a “non-video item” comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first “non-video item” meets a preset condition; in response to the second preset object associated with the first “non-video item” meeting the preset condition, displaying a preset identifier on a playing screen of the first “non-video item”; in response to a triggering acting on the preset identifier, displaying at least one second “non-video item”, wherein the at least one second “non-video item” is at least one media item associated with the first preset object, which is determined based on associated information of the first “non-video item”.
Therefore, Applicant amended the claims to recited a broader term that is not supported by Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification only has support of the original claimed embodiment filed on 8/9/24 using the term/element (s) “video” before being replaced by the non-supported term/element(s) “media item”.
Independent claims 13 and 14 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-11 were amended in a similar fashion as in independent claim 1 (replacing all instances of the term/element(s) “video” with “media item); therefore, recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
New dependent claims 16-22 comprise the “media term” which is not supported by Applicant’s specification as explained above. Therefore, these claims recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner’s Statement
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitation(s): “determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition… in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition.” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition …” limitation only needs to be performed if the second preset object meets a preset condition. If the second preset object does not meet a preset condition, then the 2nd and 3rd limitations do not occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 1 requires the “in response to a first media item comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition” limitation.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “in response to a first media item comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition” limitation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually seeing if first set of data matches a second set of data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
N/A
Dependent claims 2-8,11
As per dependent claim 2, Claim 2 incorporates the contingent limitation(s) of Claim 1. In addition, Claim 2 also recites the following contingent limitation(s): “determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal; and in response to determining that the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside the preset range determined based on the target terminal, determining that the second preset object associated with the first media item meets the preset condition.” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “…determining that the second preset object associated with the first media item meets the preset condition …” limitation only needs to be performed if the target interest point is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal. If the target interest point is not outside the range, then the succeeding determining step does not occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 2 requires the “wherein the second preset object associated with the first media item is a target interest point associated with the first media item, the determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition comprising: determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal” limitation.
Thus, the limitation of “determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually seeing if a certain object is viewable from where the user is standing.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, “the second preset object associated with the first media item is a target interest point associated with the first media item,” limitation(s) does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1.
As per dependent claim (s) 3, 5, each claim does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 incorporates the contingent limitation(s) of Claim 1. In addition, Claim 4 also recites the following contingent limitation(s): “determining whether the preset identifier is displayed through a first preset model… wherein in response to determining that the preset identifier is displayed, the displaying the preset identifier on the playing screen of the first media item is performed..” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “…the displaying the preset identifier on the playing screen of the first media item is performed …” limitation only needs to be performed if the preset identifier is displayed through a first preset model. If the the preset identifier is not displayed through a first preset model is, then the succeeding display step does not occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 4 requires the “determining whether the preset identifier is displayed through a first preset model, based on a first feature of a current user and a second feature of the first media item, wherein the current user is a user operating the target terminal” limitation.
Thus, the limitation of “determining whether the preset identifier is displayed through a first preset model” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually easily visually see if a model was used to show an object.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation of “determining a related media item set…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually easily determine and group various items together that share one or more common characteristics.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation of “…determining whether the candidate media item…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually easily determine and group various items together that share one or more common characteristics.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the recitation of “inputting the associated information of the first media item into a second preset model to obtain the related media item set” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “inputting the associated information of the first media item into a second preset model to obtain the related media item set” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation of “…ranking the each video media item in the related video media item set.…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components That is, “ranking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a list of item in an particular order of the user’s choosing.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the recitation of “inputting the associated information of the first media item into a third preset model…” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “inputting the associated information of the first media item into a third preset model …” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 10, the limitation of “displaying the second preset object” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, displaying information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “…jumping from the playing screen…to a page…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, jumping from one page/screen to another page/screen has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014): retrieve a page of data via hyperlink) Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 11, In addition, the limitation of “displaying the third preset object and…;” and “displaying an associated page…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, displaying information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9, 13-14, and 16-22 are eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al (US20200264007, 2020).
Examiner’s Statement
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitation(s): “determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition… in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition.” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition …” limitation only needs to be performed if the second preset object meets a preset condition. If the second preset object does not meet a preset condition, then the 2nd and 3rd limitations do not occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 1 requires the “in response to a first media item comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition” limitation. However, for art rejection purposes ONLY, the claim(s) will be rejected as if the limitation(s) were not deemed as contingent limitations.
As per independent claim 1, Yoo et al discloses media item display method applied to a target terminal(FIG 4; 0079-0080)
in response to a first media item comprising a first preset object being played, determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition; (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0079, 0098, 0095: Discloses a preview video being played wherein a number of POIs are displayed on the video. Conditions include, not limited to: determines if a POI is at a distance within a predetermined value to be a focus POI, a POI is close or distant to the terminal, if a POI has a high user preference. The preview video comprises various city objects such as shops, buildings, people, roads etc. as shown in FIG 4-5, 7)
in response to the second preset object associated with the first media item meeting the preset condition, displaying a preset identifier on a playing screen of the first media item (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0084, 0095: POIs meeting the distance within a predetermined value is considered a POI and a special UI/icon representing the POI labeled as a focus POI (identifier) is displayed. Other conditions meeting a specific condition have their identifier displayed different (0093))
in response to a triggering acting on the preset identifier, displaying at least one second media item, wherein the at least one second media item is at least one media item associated with the first preset object, which is determined based on associated information of the first media item. (FIG 6; 0065, 0089, 0091: selecting the focus POI 430 loads a separate UI page/representative image associated with the city objects (e.g. shop))
Examiner’s Statement
As per dependent claim 2, Claim 2 incorporates the contingent limitation(s) of Claim 1. In addition, Claim 2 also recites the following contingent limitation(s): “determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal; and in response to determining that the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside the preset range determined based on the target terminal, determining that the second preset object associated with the first media item meets the preset condition.” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “…determining that the second preset object associated with the first media item meets the preset condition …” limitation only needs to be performed if the target interest point is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal. If the target interest point is not outside the range, then the succeeding determining step does not occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 2 requires the “wherein the second preset object associated with the first media item is a target interest point associated with the first media item, the determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition comprising: determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal” limitation. However, for art rejection purposes ONLY, the claim(s) will be rejected as if the limitation(s) were not deemed as contingent limitations.
As per dependent claim 2, Yoo et al discloses wherein the second preset object associated with the first media item is a target interest point associated with the first media item, (i.e. FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0079, 0098, 0095: POI) and the determining whether a second preset object associated with the first media item meets a preset condition comprises: determining whether the target interest point associated with the first media item is outside a preset range determined based on the target terminal; and (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0084, 0095: e.g. POIs are distant or close to the user device; POIs meeting the distance within a predetermined value)
in response to determining that the target interest point associated with the first video is outside the preset range, determined based on the target terminal, determining that the second preset object associated with the first video meets the preset condition. (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0079, 0098, 0095: see FIG 7 of a POI meets a preset condition and not a focus POI)
As per dependent claim 3, Yoo et al discloses wherein a third preset object associated with the second video is within the preset range determined based on the target terminal, and the third preset object is a target interest point associated with the second video. (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0079, 0098, 0095: determine if a POI is within a certain distance)
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale., Note: “first preset model” is not defined by the language of the claim or in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the BRI of the term ““first preset model” is applied.)Furthermore, Yoo et al discloses before displaying the preset identifier on the playing screen of the first media item: determining whether the preset identifier is displayed through a first preset model, based on a first feature of a current user and a second feature of the first media item (0079, 0093-0096, 0106, 0114, 0120, 0140: the displaying of certain POIs as being more prominent/focused based on the user preferences/user behavior. This is a form of displayed through a first preset model) wherein the current user is a user operating the target terminal, (0076) and in response to determining that the preset identifier is displayed, the displaying the preset identifier on the playing screen of the first video is performed. (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0084, 0095)
As per dependent claim 5, Yoo et al discloses wherein the preset identifier comprises a keyword associated with the first preset object. (FIG 4-5, 7: includes keywords)
As per independent claims 13 and 14, Claims 13-14 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Yoo et al discloses a processor, storage device and a medium (FIG 1, 3; 0019)
As per dependent claims 16-19, Claims 16-19 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-5 and are rejected under similar rationale.
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, 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) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in further view of Zhu (US20230385330, EFD 5/12/2021).
As per dependent claim 6, Yoo et al discloses determining a related media item set based on associated information of the first media item, wherein the at least one second media item is at least one media item in the related media item set, (FIG 6; 0065, 0089, 0091: determines a UI page/representative image associated, form of a set) wherein the associated information of the first media item comprises a preset range feature where the target terminal is located. (FIG 4-5, 7; 0076, 0084, 0095) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the associated information of the first media item comprises a tag corresponding to the first preset object in the first media item, a text feature associated with the first media item, a screen feature of the first media item. However, Zhu discloses the associated information of the first media item comprises a tag corresponding to the first preset object in the first media item, a text feature associated with the first media item, a screen feature of the first media item (0044: the feature information of the video may specifically include text description information related to the video, such as the title of the video, the content analysis of the video, tags or topics set when the video is uploaded)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Zhu since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of translating raw visual data into searchable, organized, and machine-readable information since videos would incredibly difficult for search engines to index, platforms to recommend, and users to find without it.
As per dependent claim 20, Claim 20 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and are rejected under similar rationale
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in further view of Zhu in further view of Jiang et al (US20190253760, 2019)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose inputting the associated information of the first media item into a second preset model to obtain the related media item set; or based on a similarity between the associated information of the first media item and associated information of a candidate media item, determining whether the candidate media item is a media item in the related media item set. However, Jiang et al discloses inputting the associated information of the first media item into a second preset model to obtain the related media item set; or based on a similarity between the associated information of the first media item and associated information of a candidate media item, determining whether the candidate media item is a media item in the related media item set. (0021, 0023, 0025: discloses finding candidate videos as recommendation videos between the similarity of the videos such as similar content characteristics (form of associated information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Jiang et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of helping users discover new content without relying solely on manual searches.
As per dependent claim 8, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Jiang et al discloses for each media item in the related media item set as a current media item, inputting associated information of the current media item and the associated information of the first media item into a third preset model to obtain a correlation degree between the current media item and the first media item; and ranking the each media item in the related media item set based on the correlation degree to determine the at least one second media item. (0026: discloses calculating a (degree of) similarity (form of correlation degree) between content characteristics of the target video and the content characteristics of a possible candidate video. Once determined that the possible video is determined as a candidate video that is similar, then the candidate video is ranked with other candidate video based on descending order. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that each candidate video has a similarity value and used to rank the candidate order in a descending order based on the determined similarity value. The preset number of the sorted candidate videos may be defined as the recommended videos corresponding to the target video).
As per dependent claim 21, Claim 21 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and are rejected under similar rationale
Claim(s) 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in further view of Zhu in further view of Jiang et al in further view of Zvinakis et al (US20170238043, 2017)
As per dependent claim 9, as previously explained in claim 8, Jiang et al discloses producing a ranked order and playing the top most ranked video (0026, 0029). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose in response to an operation of sliding a playing screen of a second media item in the at least one second video media item in a preset direction, displaying a playing screen of a next second media item according to a ranking order of the each media item in the related media item set. However, Zvinakis et al discloses if the media viewer determines that the user made a swipe left gesture at the edge portion of the UI, the media viewer can provide a next video item for playback, such as the next video item in a playlist. (0024) Zvinakis et al discloses the playlist as a collection of one or more video items from users of the content sharing platform that can be viewed in sequential order (form of a default ranked order)(0049)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Zvinakis et al since it would have provided the benefit of easily move through the video timeline by a desired amount. (0025)
In conjunction with Jiang, the combination of the cited art teaches in response to an operation of sliding a playing screen of a second media item in the at least one second media item in a preset direction, display a playing screen of a next second media item according to a ranking order of the each media item in the related media item set.
As per dependent claim 22, Claim 22 recites similar limitations as in Claim 9and are rejected under similar rationale
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in further view of Ma (US20160265935, 2016)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose displaying the second preset object associated with the first media item on the playing screen of the first media item; and in response to a triggering on the second preset object, jumping from the playing screen of the first media item to a page where the second preset object is located. However, Ma discloses displaying the second preset object associated with the first media item on the playing screen of the first media item; (FIG 3C; 0065: discloses displaying annotated information, a form of a second preset object)
in response to a triggering on the second preset object, jumping from the playing screen of the first media item to a page where the second preset object is located(FIG 3D, 0079: When the “annotated information ” is selected, the detail page of the street view corresponding to the selected annotated information is displayed which comprises directions/route information to the location associated with the annotated information. (form of a page comprising where the second preset object is located)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Ma since it would have provided the benefit of efficiently and conveniently implement guidance to a street view destination in a targeted manner. (0005)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al in further view of E (US20170318355, 2017)
As per dependent claim 11, the cited art to disclose displaying the third preset object and a preset list identifier on the playing screen of the second media item; and in response to a triggering on the preset list identifier, displaying an associated page, wherein the associated page comprises an information list associated with the first preset object. However, E discloses displaying the third preset object and a preset list identifier on the playing screen of the second video media item; (FIG 2, 2c, 2c1; 0065-0066 discloses a “third preset object” /floating layer comprising a link to an associated page is displayed))
and in response to a triggering on the preset list entrance identifier, displaying an associated page, wherein the associated page comprises an information list associated with the first preset object. (FIG 2, 2d, 2d-1; 0066 clicking on the link loads a page comprising a list of information regarding the selected object within the video)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of E al since it would have provided the benefit of the user can easily learn more information about the object in the video, thereby improving user experience. (0248)
Conclusion
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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights