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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue that Chen does not disclose “new focus information of the user” (feature 1). To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. In Chen, nothing precludes the user to look at the screen as many times as he or she wants therefore every time the user watches the screen a new focus information is obtained and new video is shown (paragraph 45-48), meeting the claim language. Applicant argues that in Chen the selection is made manually. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches the selection can be made by eye movement (paragraph 37 and 47) or by a gesture (paragraph 23), further meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that Chen does not teach “a video cover” (feature 2). To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen clearly discloses a Video cover (paragraph 32, first line), clearly meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that Chen does not switch that the videos from one video to another (feature 3). To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches switching from one video to another depending on the focus information and the search trigger operations (paragraph 45-48), meeting the claim language.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen, US 2023/0308727 in view of Shu et al., US 2022/0309789.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Chen discloses an electronic device, comprising a storage medium, a processor, and a computer program stored on the storage medium and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, carries out the a method comprising:
obtaining focus information of a user (paragraph 37);
determining, based on the focus information, a first video cover that meets a predetermined preview condition in a list of video covers (paragraph 40-42);
obtaining a first predetermined video segment of the first video cover (paragraph 46-48);
playing the first predetermined video segment (paragraph 46-48);
after the playing the first predetermined video segment (paragraph 46-48),
determining, based on new focus information of the user, a second video cover that meets a predetermined preview condition in the list of the video covers, wherein the second video cover is different from the first video cover (paragraph 40-42);
obtaining a second predetermined video segment of the second video cover (paragraph 46-48);
switching the first predetermined video segment to the second predetermined video segment for playback (Chen paragraph 31-49, Shu paragraph 61).
Although Chen discloses a panoramic camera and a virtual reality camera (paragraph 173); Chen is silent about displaying the video in a panoramic space of virtual reality.
In an analogous art, Shu discloses displaying the video in a panoramic space of virtual reality (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s device with the teachings of Shu. The motivation would have been to give the user a panoramic environment for the benefit of providing an immerse experience.
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: before obtaining the focus information of the user, displaying the list of the video covers, and playing a third predetermined video segment in the panoramic space of virtual reality, wherein the third predetermined video segment is a predetermined video segment of a video cover in the lists of the video covers (Chen paragraph 31-49, Shu paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 8, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the playing the first predetermined video segment in a panoramic space of virtual reality comprises: switching the third predetermined video segment to the first predetermined video segment for playback in the panoramic space of virtual reality (Chen paragraph 31-49, Shu paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 12, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined video segment of a video cover in the list of the video covers comprises: a static image carousel of a corresponding video, a silent segment of the video, a thumbnail edited version of the video, or a sound segment of the video (Chen paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 16, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after the playing the first predetermined video segment in a panoramic space of virtual reality, in response to a video playback instruction from the use for the first video cover, switching the first predetermined video segment to a video content corresponding to the first video cover for playback in the panoramic space of virtual reality (Chen paragraph 31-49, Shu paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 17, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: after the playing the first predetermined video segment in a panoramic space of virtual reality, in response to new focus information of the user moving out of a range of the first video cover, canceling the playback of the first predetermined video segment in the panoramic space of virtual reality (Chen paragraph 31-49, Shu paragraph 61).
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen in view of Shu in view of Schultz et al., US 2016/0256784.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen and Shu are silent about determining a video cover on which the focus information is hovering for a period greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold period as the first video cover that meets the predetermined preview condition.
In an analogous art, Shu discloses choosing media when the selection is hover (focus) for a time greater than a threshold time (paragraph 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Shu’s method with the teachings of Schultz. The motivation would have been to make sure the user wants the focus media for the benefit of not providing the erroneous content.
Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen in view of Shu in view of Suzuki et al., US 2021/0092466.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen and Shu are silent about switching the first predetermined video segment to the second predetermined video segment through a first transition animation for playback in the panoramic space of virtual reality.
In an analogous art, Suzuki discloses switching the first predetermined video segment to the second predetermined video segment through a first transition animation for playback in the panoramic space of virtual reality (paragraph 99 and155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Shu’s method with the teachings of Suzuki. The motivation would have been to have a user friendly interface for the benefit of increasing user engagement.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Chen, Shu and Suzuki disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the first transition animation is generated based on the first predetermined video segment and/or the second predetermined video segment (Suzuki paragraph 99 and 155).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Chen, Shu and Suzuki disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the first transition animation is generated based on a current user's historical browsing record of the list of the video covers (Suzuki paragraph 99 and 155).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen in view of Shu in view of Wong et al., US 2008/0310627.
Regarding claim 13, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen and Shu are silent about wherein a predetermined video segment of a video cover in the list of the video covers is downloaded in advance in response to a predetermined network bandwidth condition being met.
In an analogous art, Wong discloses downloading media in advanced in response to a predetermine network bandwidth condition (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Shu’s method with the teachings of Wong. The motivation would have been to have the content ready when needed for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen in view of Shu in view of Minder, US 2014/0219630.
Regarding claim 14, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen and Shu are silent about wherein a predetermined video segment of a video cover in the list of the video covers is determined based on information of the current user, wherein for the same video cover, different users have respective corresponding predetermined video segments.
In an analogous art, Minder discloses wherein a predetermined video segment of a video cover in the list of the video covers is determined based on information of the current user, wherein for the same video cover, different users have respective corresponding predetermined video segments (paragraph 93-99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Shu’s method with the teachings of Minder. The motivation would have been to give the user the desired media for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen in view of Shu in view of Ichikawa et al, US 2023/0005454.
Regarding claim 15, Chen and Shu disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen and Shu are silent about playing a panoramic content of the first predetermined video segment within a predetermined range.
In an analogous art, Ichikawa discloses playing a panoramic content within a predetermined range (paragraph 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Shu’s method with the teachings of Ichikawa. The motivation would have been to increase user attention for the benefit of providing enjoyable experience.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights