DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 9-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 2019/0199998 A1).
As in Claim 1, Shen teaches an information presentation method, wherein the method is applied to an extended reality (XR) terminal device (FIG. 3, pars. 43, 47, 59, operations or methods applied to a VR device (e.g., VR HMD) for users experiencing a virtual world), and the method comprises:
entering a virtual reality space (FIGS. 3 and 16-17, pars. 43, 47, 59, the user may enter the virtual world/space/environment; further see pars. 43-61);
receiving a media playing instruction triggered by a user to display a playing page of a target multimedia file in the virtual reality space (FIGS. 16-17, pars. 199-200, a video playback interface can be displayed with the user input);
presenting a playing controlling panel in the virtual reality space, wherein the playing controlling panel comprises a control region and a non-control region (FIG. 17, par. 200, the video playback interface includes buttons for media controls and other regions); and
presenting, in the non-control region, information related to the multimedia file (FIG. 17, par. 200, a video playback progress and playback time can be displayed the other regions).
As in Claim 2, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Shen further teaches that the control region comprises at least two control sub-regions (see FIG. 17, par. 200); any two control sub- regions are not connected (see FIG. 17, par. 200); and at least one control is arranged in each of the control sub- regions (see FIG. 17, par. 200).
As in Claim 3, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Shen further teaches that the non-control region and the control region are arranged on at the top and bottom or on the left and right (see FIG. 17, par. 200).
As in Claim 4, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Shen further teaches that the non-control region comprises at least one of the following regions: a time progress controlling region, content introduction region, associated content recommendation region, comment region, advertising region, and selection menu region of the target multimedia file (see FIG. 17, par. 200, the video playback progress).
Claims 9 and 10 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 11 and 17 are substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 18 are substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 19 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same 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.
4. Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0199998 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 7119848 B2) and further in Karunamuni et al. (US 2017/0046058 A1).
As in Claim 5, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Shen does not teach that response to detecting a preset operation performed on a target region in the non-control region, all the other regions of the playing controlling panel are forbidden to make feedback, and a response region of the target region is expanded to respond to a user operation performed on the target region.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Smith teaches that response to detecting a preset operation performed on a target region in the non-control region, all the other regions of the playing controlling panel are forbidden to make feedback (col. 2, lines 5-21, col. 3, lines 22-50, upon selectin of a particular option from a first window, at least part of the first window or second window is reconfigured such that the remaining part of the reconfigured window and/or part or all of the other window(s) can be disabled)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the video playback interface in the virtual world, as taught by Shen, and to provide the way to disabling remaining areas upon selection, as taught by Smith. The motivation is to prevent users from selecting other options in the remaining areas while interaction continues only with the intended interface portion.
Shen and Smith do not teach that a response region of the target region is expanded to respond to a user operation performed on the target region.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Karunamuni teaches that a response region of the target region is expanded to respond to a user operation performed on the target region (at least see FIGS. 5B-5C, pars. 185-185, when a user applies input at a location on media playback slider 502 (identified by focus selector 518), the interface vertically expands the slider to reveal additional audio waveform information).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the video playback interface in the virtual world, as taught by Shen, in view of Smith’s teachings, and to expand the area (e.g., playback slider) with the user input, as taught by Karunamuni. The motivation is to provide users with additional information or available controls associated with the selected GUI element, improving visibility, accessibility, and ease of interaction with the interface.
Claims 14 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 6, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0199998 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 2011/0275416 A1).
As in Claim 6, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Shen does not teach that in response to detecting a preset operation, switching the playing controlling panel to a control region that only comprises a single function.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Chang teaches that in response to detecting a preset operation, switching the playing controlling panel to a control region that only comprises a single function (FIGS. 4-5, pars. 100-104, 110-119, 121-122, with a user input (e.g., key, touch gesture, or motion gesture), the motile terminal changes the way video playback progress is displayed by switching between a time-scale playback progress bar and a frame-scale playback progress display that only comprises a single function (e.g., play icon)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the video playback interface in the virtual world, as taught by Shen, and to switch the time-scale playback progress bar to the frame-scale payback progress display, as taught by Chang. The motivation is to provide a more intuitive way for user to locate and navigate video playback positions by switching from a time-based progress bar to a frame-based thumbnail view.
Claims 15 and 21 are substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0199998 A1) in view of Akeyama et al. (US 2011/0157487 A1).
As in Claim 7, Shen teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Shen does not teach:
in response to the multimedia file being a video, a projection mode of a video source being a full screen mode, and a length-width ratio of a video image in the video source being different from a length-width ratio of a video display region on the playing page of the target multimedia file: aligning a center of the video image with a center of the video display region to maintaining the length-width ratio of the video image unchanged and enlarge the video image until a width of the video image is consistent with a width of the video display region and a length of the video image is less than a length of the video display region; or, aligning a center of the video image with a center of the video display region to maintain the length-width ratio of the video image unchanged and enlarge the video image until a length of the video image is consistent with a length of the video display region and a width of the video image is less than a width of the video display region.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Akeyama teaches: in response to the multimedia file being a video, a projection mode of a video source being a full screen mode, and a length-width ratio of a video image in the video source being different from a length-width ratio of a video display region on the playing page of the target multimedia file (FIGS. 6A-6B, 11A-11D, pars. 82, 90, 95, 100, 111-112, A video (or display video 7) can be projected and displayed in a full on a display area 6 of the liquid crystal panel 13. The aspect ratio of the display video 7 can be different from that of the display area 6 with an aspect ratio of 16:9):
aligning a center of the video image with a center of the video display region to maintaining the length-width ratio of the video image unchanged and enlarge the video image until a width of the video image is consistent with a width of the video display region and a length of the video image is less than a length of the video display region; or, aligning a center of the video image with a center of the video display region to maintain the length-width ratio of the video image unchanged and enlarge the video image until a length of the video image is consistent with a length of the video display region and a width of the video image is less than a width of the video display region (FIGS. 6A-6B, 11A-11D, pars. 82, 90, 95, 100, 111-112, the system adjusts the video signal to display/reposition the center portion of the display video 7 (or projected video 3) in the center portion of the display area 6 of the liquid crystal panel 13. This operation is repeated until the center of the screen is matched with the center of the projected video).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the video playback interface in the virtual world, as taught by Shen, and to provide the way to align the center of the display video and the display panel to maintain aspect ratio, as taught by Akeyama. The motivation is to prevent the projected video from extending off the screen and maintain correct image positioning and full-screen display despite lens shift, aspect ratio changes, or zoom adjustment.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights