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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application No. 18/873,650 filed on 12/10/2024. Claim(s) 8 has been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 is/are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/10/2024, 05/23/2025, 11/26/2025 is/are considered.
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 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, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363).
Consider claims 1, 9, and 10 Dukes teaches a method for video-based interaction, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed on a terminal device, cause the terminal device, and a device for video-based interaction comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program causes the device (Paragraph 0034-0035) comprising/to:
display a plurality of user identifiers on a video play page of a target video, wherein the target video has a plurality of associated users, and the user identifiers are used to identify the associated users (Fig.8B; Paragraph 0085 teaches content description broken into two categories: ‘cast & crew’ and ‘movie review’. Paragraph 0090 teaches ‘cast & crew’ category has been selected and the content description window 820 has been filed with information pertaining the cast and crew of the particular selected content 810); and
in response to a trigger operation on a target user identifier of the plurality of user identifiers, display a preset panel on the video play page, and display preset media content information of a target associated user corresponding to the target user identifier in a first display area on the preset panel (Paragraph 0090 teaches user may navigate from one option to another using the navigation buttons on a remote control or the directional keys of a keyboard. Other means of user input may be similarly employed. Paragraph 0091 teaches with the `cast &crew` category selected, the user is then able to navigate and select between the various actors and actresses listed in the content description window 820. User has navigated to and selected Actor 5, as shown by reference arrow 860. By selecting Actor 5, recommendation list 830 is updated to display additional movies that Actor 5 has starred in, which in this embodiment is listed as Movie D, Movie E and Movie F. Paragraph 0092 teaches in addition to updating recommendation list 830 with additional movies featuring Actor 5, additional information for Actor 5 may be displayed in window 870).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363) in view of Chen (US 2023/0308727).
Consider claims 2, 11, and 17, Dukes teaches wherein the preset media content information comprises a preset number of multimedia works associated with the target associated user; multimedia work in the first display area (Fig.8B, Paragraph 0090-0092).
Dukes do not explicitly teach covers of a preset number of multimedia works published by the target associated user, and the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation on a cover of a target multimedia work, playing the target multimedia work based on a target multimedia information stream, wherein the target multimedia information stream comprises multimedia works published by the target associated user.
In an analogous art, Chen teaches covers of a preset number of multimedia works published by the target associated user, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on a cover of a target multimedia work, playing the target multimedia work based on a target multimedia information stream, wherein the target multimedia information stream comprises multimedia works published by the target associated user (Paragraph 0035, 0089-0090 teaches video list interface displaying video covers of a plurality of videos of the same author. Upon a trigger operation of the video cover, a video playing interface is displayed. Paragraph 0025, 0030 teaches a video playing function at a client device served by a playing service for a plurality of videos).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes to include covers of a preset number of multimedia works published by the target associated user, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on a cover of a target multimedia work, playing the target multimedia work based on a target multimedia information stream, wherein the target multimedia information stream comprises multimedia works published by the target associated user, as taught by Chen, for the advantage of allowing the user to better visually see related content information at a glance, allowing them to easily peruse through content, to select desired content for playback.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2023/0042609).
Consider claims 3, 12, and 18, Duke teaches further comprising:
displaying a list of associated users corresponding to the target video in a second display area on the preset panel, wherein the list of associated users comprises other associated users among the associated users corresponding to the target video (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0090-0091), but do not explicitly teach comprises other associated users among the associated users except the target associated user.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches comprises other associated users among associated users except a target associated user (Fig.5, Paragraph 0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes to include comprises other associated users among associated users except a target associated user, as taught by Zhang, for the advantage of visually distinguishing/highlighting user(s) from one another.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363), in view of Zhang et al. (US 2023/0042609), and further in view of Doken (US 2023/0196478).
Consider claims 4, 13, and 19, Dukes and Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein the associated users in the list of associated users are respectively provided with preset first interactive controls, and the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation on a preset first interactive control corresponding to a first associated user in the list of associated users, establishing a preset first interactive relationship between a current user and the first associated user.
In an analogous art, Doken teaches wherein the associated users in the list of associated users are respectively provided with preset first interactive controls, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on a preset first interactive control corresponding to a first associated user in the list of associated users, establishing a preset first interactive relationship between a current user and the first associated user (Fig.5A, Paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes and Zhang to include wherein the associated users in the list of associated users are respectively provided with preset first interactive controls, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on a preset first interactive control corresponding to a first associated user in the list of associated users, establishing a preset first interactive relationship between a current user and the first associated user, as taught by Doken, for the advantage of giving users control to easily be updated regarding user(s) they may be interested in.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363) in view of Chow et al. (US 2022/0353565).
Consider claims 5, 14, and 20, Duke does not explicitly teach further comprising:
in response to a trigger operation on a preset sub-area in the first display area, jumping from the video play page to a profile page of the target associated user.
In an analogous art, Chow teaches in response to a trigger operation on a preset sub-area in the first display area, jumping from the video play page to a profile page of the target associated user (Paragraph 0099 teaches a UI 500 with a short video being displayed. UI may include creator information 506 associated with a creator of the short video, where creator information may include at least one of an icon or a creator name. Paragraph 0126 teaches to access a creator page, a user may click the page icon or the user name, such as the creator information 506 of the UI 500 in Fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes to include in response to a trigger operation on a preset sub-area in the first display area, jumping from the video play page to a profile page of the target associated user, as taught by Chow, for the advantage of enabling the user to navigate to various pages for more information, providing them with control, so that they can take action themselves when further information is needed.
Consider claims 7 and 16, Dukes does not explicitly teach wherein the user identifier comprises a user name and/or a user avatar icon.
In an analogous art, Chow teaches wherein a user identifier comprises a user name (506-Fig.5, Paragraph 0126) and/or a user avatar icon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes to include wherein a user identifier comprises a user name and/or a user avatar icon., as taught by Chow, for the advantage of allowing user to click on the user name to access the creator page (Chow – Paragraph 0126), and allowing the user to easily recognize and associate the creator with the video.
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 2005/0076363) in view of Komich et al. (US 2023/0142904)
Consider claims 6, 15, and 21, Dukes teaches wherein a preset second interactive control is provided in the first display area, and the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation on the preset second interactive control in the first display area, establishing a preset second interactive relationship between a current user and the target associated user.
In an analogous art, Komich teaches wherein a preset second interactive control is provided in the first display area, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the preset second interactive control in the first display area, establishing a preset second interactive relationship between a current user and the target associated user (310B - Fig.3B, 414N – Fig. 4A; Paragraph 0059, 0066; Paragraph 0051, 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Dukes to include wherein a preset second interactive control is provided in the first display area, and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the preset second interactive control in the first display area, establishing a preset second interactive relationship between a current user and the target associated user, as taught by Komich, for the advantage of enabling a user to follow and receive updates (Komich – Paragraph 0051), giving users control to easily be updated regarding user(s) they may be interested in.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425