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 in response to the application filed on 20 August 2024, the preliminary amendment filed on 22 August 2024, and the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 8 November 2024, 26 June 2025, and 30 December 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-17 were originally filed on 8/20/24.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-16 have been amended by the preliminary amendment.
Claim 17 was cancelled by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 18-21 were added by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority, CN202210159286.2 filed 2/21/2022, 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 8 November 2024, 26 June 2025, and 30 December 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/20/24 have been entered and accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification and abstract filed on 8/22/24 have been entered.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The current title 1) is broad and 2) doesn’t include subject matter being claimed within Applicant’s invention. The title does not involve the subject matter of dealing with masking videos unless the user interacts with a pop up interaction control. The Examiner suggests the title “Masking Videos for Improved User Attention"
The (amended) abstract of the disclosure filed on 8/22/24 is objected because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. 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 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.
Claims 1-16, 18-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the operation being a video switching operation” in the second displaying limitation. However, claim 1 already introduced a “operation” element in the prior detecting limitation (“detecting an operation of the user”) and removing limitations (an operation on the target interaction control”). Therefore, it is unclear if “the operation” element of the second displaying limitation should depend on the “operation” in the first displaying limitation, the “operation” in the removing limitation, or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “displaying a previous video or a next video of the currently displayed video in response to a video switching operation”
Claims 15 and 16 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the publisher" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as “determining whether the user has followed a publisher of the video to display the mask layer over the video in case that the user has not followed the publisher of the video.”
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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, 12, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al (CN111669639A, pub. 2020-09-15)(Disclosed in the IDS filed on 6/26/2025).US PGPub 20230124461, also disclosed in the IDS filed 6/26/25, is used as the English translation of CN111669639A for this office action. All references to paragraph numbers associated with Lin et al disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the cited US PGPub publication)
As per independent claim 1, Lin et al discloses a method comprising:
displaying a mask layer over a currently displayed video, wherein the mask layer comprises a target interaction control (FIG 1; FIG 3; 0040-0045: video is played wherein a mask interface is displayed over the video; mask interface comprises an exit control that can be interacted with (FIG 2; 0051;0080))
detecting an operation of a user concurrently; removing the mask layer in response to the operation being an operation on the target interaction control(0067-0068, 0080: user selects the exit control of the mask interface to exit the mask interface)
displaying a previous video or a next video of the currently displayed video in response to the operation being a video switching operation. (0069: when exiting the mask interface, or after exiting the mask interface, the method further includes: playing another received video other than the activity promotion video. Thus, when the user exits the mask interface, by using the exit control (0080), another received video is played (form of a next video)))
As per dependent claim 12, Lin et al discloses wherein the target interaction control is a button.(0051 discloses an exit control is presented on the mask interface, FIG 2 shows that the exit control is in as a form of “X” icon, and 0082 discloses response to an exit instruction of the activity interface generated by clicking an exit control by the user. Therefore, exit control 205 acts as a button.)
As per independent claims 15-16, Claims 15-16 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Lin et al discloses a memory, processor, and a medium (FIG 6; 0108, 0112-0113)
As per dependent claim 20, Claim 20 recites similar limitations as in Claim 12 and is 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) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Elder et al (US 12394006, filed 1/25/2022)
As per dependent claim 2, Lin et al discloses parameters such as transparency and scale of the pop-up window interface can be configured, to improve display effect of the entrance prop, suggesting a configuration of the transparency. (0045) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a background transparency of at least part of the mask layer is lower than a transparency threshold. However, Elder et al discloses a mask overlay having a transparency that is lower than a transparency threshold. Elder discloses an initial transparency level of the mask overlay may correspond with a first value (e.g., 50 percent transparent, etc.) (Col 13, ll. 46-56: One of skill artisan would have realized that if a value is at 50% transparent, then the transparency is most likely based on a scale being from 0-100% wherein 100% would have been viewed as the claimed “transparency threshold” and 50% is less than 100%. 50% transparency would not be considered full transparent, but half transparent)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Elder et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of a highly flexible, non-destructive way to control visibility.
As dependent claim 3, based on the rejection of Claim 2 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Elder et al teaches wherein the background transparency of the mask layer is gradually changed in a reference direction (Col 13, ll. 46-56: increase transparency in accordance with the decay function over time. In other words, the amount of transparency gradually increases (form of a reference direction) over time.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Miller et al (US 20150350739, 2015)
As per dependent claim 4, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein interaction control(s) other than the target interaction control corresponding to the video are in a disabled state in case that the mask layer is displayed. However, Miller et al discloses wherein interaction control(s) other than the target interaction control corresponding to the video are in a disabled state in case that the mask layer is displayed. (0043: the video player's conventional control buttons (e.g., time sliders, pause buttons and the like) are grayed out during auto-initiated playback of advertising to more clearly indicate that the user is seeing advertising content rather than the requested video)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Miller et al since it would have provided the benefit of clearly indicate that the user is seeing advertising content rather than the requested video (0043)
Claim(s) 5-8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of IIic, (“CSS-Only Lightbox”, 2011, 9 pages) in further view of Kim et al (US 20200293168, 2020)
As per dependent claim 5, Lin et al discloses clicking on a random area other than the exit control; (0061) however, the cited art fails to disclose maintain the mask layer …in response to detecting an operation of the user, which is not a video switching operation, on an area other than the target interaction control. However, Ilic discloses displaying an overlay container over displayed content that the overlay container will remain present until the user selects the close button. (pgs 2-7; particular pg 2-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Ilic since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of preventing users from accidentally closing the popup by clicking outside of its boundaries.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to disclose generating operation feedback in response to detecting an operation of the user… on an area other than the target interaction control. However, Kim et al discloses if the user selects an area or button (e.g. wrong button) other than the designated button/area, the user is provided with visual and audio feedback that instructs the user to select the correct button/area. (FIG 9; 0109-00113)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Kim et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide a user with a method of using an electronic apparatus flexibly and actively through a machine learning algorithm, instead of simply providing an executing method and an approaching method for various functions and operations fixedly and formally, based solely on a manual for an electronic apparatus. (0006)
As per dependent claim 6, based on the rejection of Claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Ilic discloses wherein the area is located in the mask layer, or the area is located in a display area of the video (pg 2-3: the area is within the mask later)
As per dependent claim 7, based on the rejection of Claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kim et al discloses wherein the operation feedback comprises at least one of: generating vibration by a terminal used to display the video, or displaying the target interaction control in a target display mode (FIG 9; 0109-00113: In response to the user selecting the wrong control/button/area, visual feedback is produced indicating which button/control the user should select. The guide UI, used to assist the user and positioned over the correct button for selection, changes its size or color to better assist the user. The guide UI changing its appearance as result of a wrong selection is a form of displaying the target interaction control in a target display mode.
As per dependent claim 8, based on the rejection of Claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kim et al discloses wherein the target display mode comprises at least one of displaying with vibration or highlighting. (FIG 9; 0109-00113: In response to the user selecting the wrong control/button/area, visual feedback is produced indicating which button/control the user should select. The guide UI, used to assist the user and positioned over the correct button for selection, changes its size or color to better assist the user. The guide UI changing its appearance as result of a wrong selection is a form of highlighting the correct button/control for the user to select.)
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recite similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Takakuwa et al (US 20210168470, 2021, filed 2020)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the operation on the target interaction control is used to trigger following a publisher of the video. However, Takakuwa et al discloses an interface presenting a video with various controls displayed on top of the video (FIG 6, 0084). One of the controls is a follow button for the user viewing the video to follow the user distributing the video (form of a publisher)(0085)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Takakuwa et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of ensures their updates appear directly in your feed, allowing you to easily maintain relationships, track industry experts, or consume valuable content without needing to search for it
As per dependent claim 11, based on the rejection of Claim 9 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Takakuwa et al discloses wherein the mask layer further comprises an avatar control of the publisher of the video. (FIG 6: top left corner shows a picture of the distribution user (form of avatar) displayed on the video (layered on top))
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Takakuwa et al in further view of Cudak et al (US 20210097118, 2021)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determining whether the user has followed the publisher of the video to display the mask layer over the video in case that the user has not followed the publisher of the video. However, Cudak et al discloses dynamically limit the individuals that are allowed to view the uncensored media content to a particular subset. For example, an embodiment may limit viewership of the uncensored media content to only a subset of a user's friends and/or family. Users within the subset of the publisher’s friends are a form of following the publisher wherein users not within that subset are not considered following the publisher. (0038) 0016, 0036, claim 1 also discloses censoring as being obscuring or redacting the content, a form of masking. Thus, users outside the publisher’s subset will have the displayed media content censored (masked) while those within the publisher’s subset will have the displayed media content uncensored. (0027, 0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Cudak et al since it would have provided the benefit of selective content scaling that may allow the primary content of the upload to be posted while scaling the unwanted content positively ensure that controversial content is not posted (0015-0016)
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Kim et al
As per dependent claim 13, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the mask layer further comprises guide information for guiding the user to operate the target interaction control. However, Kim et al discloses wherein the mask layer further comprises guide information for guiding the user to operate the target interaction control. (FIG 9; 0109-00113: In response to the user selecting the wrong control/button/area, visual feedback is produced indicating which button/control the user should select. The guide UI, used to assist the user and positioned over the correct button for selection, changes its size or color to better assist the user. The guide UI changing its appearance as result of a wrong selection is a form of highlighting the correct button/control for the user to select.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Kim et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide a user with a method of using an electronic apparatus flexibly and actively through a machine learning algorithm, instead of simply providing an executing method and an approaching method for various functions and operations fixedly and formally, based solely on a manual for an electronic apparatus. (0006)
Claim(s) 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Zhang et al (CN111787415A, pub. 2020-10-16) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of CN111787415A provided by the EPO is attached with this Office Action. All references to paragraph numbers associated with Zhang et al disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the EPO’s English translation copy provided by the Examiner)
As per dependent claim 14, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the video switching operation is a slide-up operation or a slide-down operation. However, Zhang discloses the video switching instruction is generated in response to a detection of sliding/swiping up and down on the video playback interface. (0051: For example, when the user swipes up, the video played in the video playback interface is switched to the previous video in the current video stream; when the user swipes down, the video played in the video playback interface is switched to the next video in the current video stream.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Zhang et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of allowing a user to instantly skip to the next video or return to the previous one without needing to tap the screen.
As per dependent claim 21, Claim 21 recite similar limitations as in Claim 14 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al in further view of Cudak et al
As per dependent claim 19, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determining whether the user has followed the publisher of the video to display the mask layer over the video in case that the user has not followed the publisher of the video. However, Cudak et al discloses dynamically limit the individuals that are allowed to view the uncensored media content to a particular subset. For example, an embodiment may limit viewership of the uncensored media content to a subset of a user's friends and/or family. Users within a subset of the publisher’s friends are a form of following the publisher wherein users not within the subset are not considered following the publisher. (0038) 0016, 0036, claim 1 also discloses censoring as being obscuring or redacting the content, a form of masking. Thus, users outside the publisher’s subset will have the displayed media content censored (masked) while those within the publisher’s subset will have the displayed media content uncensored. (0027, 0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the explained cited feature(s) of Cudak et al since it would have provided the benefit of selective content scaling that may allow the primary content of the upload to be posted while scaling the unwanted content positively ensure that controversial content is not posted (0015-0016)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soueidan, “Accessible Icon Buttons” is cited regarding selectable icon controls are actually icon buttons.
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