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 in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 9/23/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-22 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not all persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
Issue: The applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the 112 rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Examiner’s response in the respective 112 rejections set forth below.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended claims overcome the 103 rejections.
The arguments are moot in light of the new ground of 103 rejections set forth below.
Issue 2: The applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims are based on the respective independent claims. See Examiner’s response to the independent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-22 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.
a) Claim 1 recites “the plurality of trajectories defining moving tracks of the dynamic comments distributed radially about the dynamic comment display area”, wherein the scope of “about the dynamic comment area” cannot be definitely determined. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any relationship with the dynamic comment display area. Claims 2-22 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 1 recites “matching the first dynamic comment with a first trajectory that is not adjacent to the second trajectory”. It is unclear what is considered “not adjacent to the second trajectory”, lacking a readily ascertainable criterion to determine “adjacent”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any special relationship. Claims 2-22 are similarly rejected.
c) Claim 1 recites “determining a first dynamic comment and a second dynamic comment of a plurality of dynamic comments to be displayed in a dynamic comment display area, wherein the second
dynamic comment is a prior dynamic comment to the first dynamic comment… obtaining a second trajectory associated with the second dynamic comment.” The scope the recited “a second dynamic comment” cannot be definitely determined because the limitations appear conflicting with each other. For example, the claim first recites that the second dynamic comment is to be displayed, meaning it has not been displayed yet, just like the first dynamic comment which is also “to be displayed”, then it is unclear what is considered that second dynamic comment’s being “a prior dynamic comment to the first dynamic comment” as recited subsequently. In addition, the claim recites further subsequently that a second trajectory is already associated with the second dynamic comment. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, and in light of the specification and the subsequent recitations in the claim, Examiner interprets that only the first dynamic comment is to be displayed while the second dynamic comment is already displayed or is currently being displayed along the second trajectory. Claims 2-22 are similarly rejected.
d) Claim 2 recites “the third dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment”. The scope of the recited “the previous dynamic comment” cannot be definitely determined in light of the parent claim’s recitation that the second dynamic comment is “a prior dynamic comment to the first dynamic comment.” It is unclear whether/how the “previous dynamic comment” differs from “prior dynamic comment”. As a result, the exact relationships between the first dynamic comment, the second dynamic comment, and the third dynamic comment cannot be definitely determined”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any relationship. Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
e) Claim 3 recites “the third dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment”. The relationship between the second dynamic comment and the third dynamic comment cannot be definitely determined, since the parent claim recites “wherein the second dynamic comment is a prior dynamic comment to the first dynamic comment”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any relationship. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
f) Claim 4 recites “matching the first dynamic comment to a first trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with the least cumulative number of usage times”. It is unclear what is considered “a first trajectory… associated with the least cumulative number of usage times”. The recited “the least cumulative number of usage times” can be reasonably interpreted as a single least number, it is then unclear what is considered “a first trajectory… associated with the least…”. Even if the least cumulative number of usage times were to be interpreted as multiple numbers, it is unclear which one is associated with a first trajectory. Applicant is required to clarify. For the same of the examination, Examiner interprets as “matching the first dynamic comment to a trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with the least cumulative number of usage times”. Claim 17 is similarly rejected.
g) Claim 5 recites “matching the first dynamic comment to a first trajectory with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments”. It is unclear what is considered “a first trajectory… with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments”. The recited “the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments” can be reasonably interpreted as a single least number, it is then unclear what is considered “a first trajectory with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments”. Even if the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments were to be interpreted as multiple numbers, it is unclear which one is a first trajectory. Applicant is required to clarify. For the same of the examination, Examiner interprets as “matching the first dynamic comment to a trajectory with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments”. Claim 18 is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 11-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN114302212A, Google Patent translation is relied upon, hereafter Li), in view of Su et al (US 2023/0282185).
As to claim 1, Li discloses a dynamic comment display method includes:
determining a first dynamic comment and a second dynamic comment of a plurality of dynamic comments to be displayed in a dynamic comment display area, wherein the second dynamic comment is a prior dynamic comment to the first dynamic comment (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein, e.g., only the first dynamic comment is to be displayed while the second dynamic comment is already displayed or is currently being displayed along a second trajectory. See Fig. 5; page 2, “The video barrage is a novel video comment display mode, can dynamically display the online friends comments along with the video content, and effectively enhances the interest and entertainment of video watching. In the existing bullet screen typesetting mode”; page 3, “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating a process of finding a composition track for a fixed bullet screen according to an embodiment of the present invention”; and page 7, “Specifically, if the fixed bullet screen is a set-top bullet screen, all available tracks are traversed from the first track; if the fixed bullet screen is a bottom bullet screen, traversing all available tracks from the first next track; if no bullet screen is displayed in the track, the track is appointed to typeset the fixed bullet screen; stopping the search if the number of traversals is greater than the maximum number of tracks allowed to be displayed. The process of finding the composition track by the fixed barrage is shown in fig. 5”. As disclosed, a new bullet screen (i.e., first dynamic comment) is to be displayed in a track/trajectory to be determined, while existing bullet screens have already been displayed in respective tracks/trajectories as shown in Fig. 5, wherein the existing bullet screens are prior to the subject/first bullet screen);
matching the first dynamic comment with a first trajectory of a plurality of trajectories in the dynamic comment display area, the plurality of trajectories defining the moving tracks of the dynamic comments distributed about the dynamic comment display area (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein. See citation in rejection to the preceding limitation), wherein the matching the first dynamic comment with the first trajectory comprises:
obtaining a second trajectory associated with the second dynamic comment (see citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., page 7, “Specifically, if the fixed bullet screen is a set-top bullet screen, all available tracks are traversed from the first track; if the fixed bullet screen is a bottom bullet screen, traversing all available tracks from the first next track; if no bullet screen is displayed in the track, the track is appointed to typeset the fixed bullet screen; stopping the search if the number of traversals is greater than the maximum number of tracks allowed to be displayed. The process of finding the composition track by the fixed barrage is shown in fig. 5”. See Fig. 5, in “set-top” case, Track0 is a second trajectory associated with a second dynamic comment, i.e., “Bullet Showing” on Track0), and
matching the first dynamic comment with a first trajectory that is not adjacent to the second trajectory (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation above, wherein according to the instructions disclosed on page 7, “if the fixed bullet screen is a set-top bullet screen, all available tracks are traversed from the first track; if the fixed bullet screen is a bottom bullet screen, traversing all available tracks from the first next track; if no bullet screen is displayed in the track, the track is appointed to typeset the fixed bullet screen”, the first dynamic comment would be displayed in Track2 since both Track0 and Track1 are occupied, wherein Track2 is not adjacent to Track0 where the second dynamic comment belongs); and
displaying the first dynamic comment moving along the first trajectory (see citation above, e.g., page 7, “if no bullet screen is displayed in the track, the track is appointed to typeset the fixed bullet screen”).
However, Li does not expressly disclose that the plurality of trajectories are distributed radially. Su discloses that trajectories can be distributed radially (see Figure 4, showing radically distributed trajectories; and [0092], “Fig. 4 is a schematic interface diagram of a present movement direction in a bullet screen comment display method according to some embodiments of this application”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Li with Su. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allow multiple presentation styles (see Su, Figures 2-4).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 14.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 11.
As to claim 2, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to claim 1, wherein matching the first trajectory with the first dynamic comment comprises:
obtaining a third trajectory used when displaying a third dynamic comment, the third dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment; and matching the first dynamic comment to a trajectory other than the third trajectory (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation and explanation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 5 and page 7, wherein Track1 is a third trajectory used when displaying a third dynamic comment, i.e., the “Bullet Showing” in Track1, and matching the first dynamic comment to Track2 which is other than Track2. Since the “Bullet Showing” in Track1 is already displayed, while the first dynamic content is to be displayed in Track2, the “Bullet Showing” in Track 1 is the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to claim 1, wherein matching the first trajectory with the first dynamic comment comprises:
obtaining a third trajectory used when displaying a third dynamic comment, the third dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation and explanation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 5 and page 7, wherein Track1 is a third trajectory used when displaying a third dynamic comment, i.e., the “Bullet Showing” in Track1. Since the “Bullet Showing” in Track1 is already displayed, while the first dynamic content is to be displayed in Track2, the “Bullet Showing” in Track 1 is the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment); and
matching the first dynamic comment to a trajectory whose angle with the third trajectory is greater than a first threshold (See Su, e.g., Fig. 4, all trajectories whose angle with any other trajectory is greater than a first threshold of 89 degree).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to
claim 1, wherein matching the first trajectory with the first dynamic comment comprises:
obtaining a cumulative number of usage times for each trajectory of the plurality of trajectories; and matching the first dynamic comment to a first trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with the least cumulative number of usage times (See 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein. See Li, see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 5 and page 7, wherein “Bullet Showing” indicates at least one current usage time, while “Empty” indicates zero current usage time, and wherein the first trajectory such as Track2 is determined to be matched to the first dynamic comment, is associated with zero current usage time which is the least. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific time or timeframe when the cumulative number of usage times is applicable, therefore Examiner interprets as any time or timeframe to accumulate a number of usage times).
As to claim 17, see citation in rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to claim 1, wherein matching the first trajectory with the first dynamic comment comprises:
obtaining a number of co-occurring dynamic comments in each one of the plurality of trajectories, wherein the number of co-occurring dynamic comments in a particular trajectory in the plurality of trajectories is a number of dynamic comments currently displayed on the particular trajectory; and matching the first dynamic comment to a first trajectory with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments (See 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein. See Li, see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 5 and page 7, wherein “empty” in Track2 indicates zero, which is a least number of co-occurring dynamic comments compared other occupied tracks).
As to claim 18, see citation in rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 14, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to claim 1, wherein each trajectory of the plurality of trajectories starts from a center of the dynamic comment display area, radiates outward, and extends to an edge of the dynamic comment display area (Su, Figure 4).
10. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su (US 2023/0379548, hereafter “Su’548”).
As to claim 6, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to
claim 1, wherein displaying the first dynamic comment moving along the first trajectory (see citation in rejection to claim 1. See also Su, Figure 4), but does not expressly disclose detecting a number of co-occurring dynamic comments in the first trajectory, wherein the number of co-occurring dynamic comments is a number of dynamic comments currently displayed on the first trajectory; and in response that the number of the co-occurring dynamic comments is greater than a second threshold, increasing a moving speed of the first dynamic comment. Su’548 discloses detecting a number of co-occurring dynamic comments in the first trajectory, wherein the number of co-occurring dynamic comments is a number of dynamic comments currently displayed on the first trajectory ([0082], “To implement different types of bullet-screen comment display effects, in some embodiments of this application, when the PK animation of the two bullet-screen comments in the same bullet-screen comment track is displayed, the two bullet-screen comments may be accelerated and displayed when the distance between the two bullet-screen comments in the same bullet-screen comment track meets a specific distance threshold, and then the PK animation of the two bullet-screen comments is displayed when the two bullet-screen comments collide with each other.”); and in response that the number of the co-occurring dynamic comments is greater than a second threshold, increasing a moving speed of the first dynamic comment (see citation above, wherein the second threshold is 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Li in view of Su with Su’548. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to implement different types of bullet-screen comment display effects (Su’548, [0082]).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 6.
11. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan (WO2021136330A1, Google patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 7, Li in view of Su discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, wherein displaying the dynamic comment moving along the first trajectory comprises: moving the first dynamic comment along the first trajectory (see citation in rejection to claim 1. See also Su, Figure 4), but does not expressly disclose that during a process of moving the first dynamic comment, changing at least one of the following parameters of the first dynamic comment gradually: size; transparency; and the offset value within the trajectory. Yuan discloses during a process of moving a first dynamic comment, changing at least one of the following parameters of the first dynamic comment gradually: size; transparency; and the offset value within the trajectory (see Yuan, Page 11, paragraph 6, “Optionally, the target display state is any one of the following: the first barrage is in contact with the second barrage on the first trajectory, the second barrage moves to the first trajectory, and the second barrage moves to the first barrage In the display area of, the second barrage passes the target boundary line of the first barrage; where the first trajectory is the movement trajectory of the first barrage; the display area of the first barrage is gradually increased with the display time of the first barrage Enlarged display area, or fixed display area”. See also page 7, paragraph 7, “Exemplarily, suppose that the first barrage is the barrage "hahaha", and the initial font size of the barrage "hahaha" can be the font size shown in (a) in Figure 4, in the first barrage and the first barrage When the second barrage is updated to the target display state, the electronic device can update the display parameters of the barrage "hahaha" by increasing the font weight of the barrage content of the barrage "hahaha" (that is, the first barrage) , That is, the electronic device displays the barrage "hahaha" with the target display parameters. Among them, after the electronic device increases the font weight of the barrage content, the display effect of the barrage "hahaha" can be the display effect of the barrage "hahaha" 41 shown in (b) in Figure 4”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Li in view of Su with Yuan. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to handle a second barrage to be close or come to a first trajectory (Yuan, Page 11, paragraph 6).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 7.
12. Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RODGERS (US 2013/0086516).
As to claim 8, Li in view of Su discloses the dynamic comment display method according to
claim 1, wherein displaying the first dynamic comment moving along the first trajectory comprises: moving the first dynamic comment along the first trajectory (see citation in rejection to claim 1); and that when the first dynamic comment contacts the edge of the dynamic comment display area, the direction is perpendicular to the edge (Su, Figure 4), but does not expressly disclose that in response to the first dynamic comment contacting the edge of the dynamic comment display area, adjusting a moving direction of the first dynamic comment to be also perpendicular to the edge of the dynamic comment display area. RODGERS discloses a concept for a displayed moving object to bounce back in response to the moving object’s contacting an edge of its display area ([0084]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Li in view of Su with RODGERS. The result of the combination would have been for the first dynamic content which contacts the edge of the display area perpendicularly as disclosed by Su, to change a direction to be away from the edge but also perpendicularly, i.e., “bounce back” as disclosed by RODGERS. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable continued display of the moving object (RODGERS, [0084]).
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 8.
13. Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US 11871086).
As to claim 9, Li in view of Su discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose feathering upper and lower edges of the dynamic comment display area. Gao disclose feathering upper and lower edges of a dynamic comment display area (col. 7, lines 50-55, “performing an edge feathering processing on the contour data”; col. 12, lines 20-25, “performing edge feathering processing on the mask area of the mask frame, to improve the smoothness of edge of the mask frame, thereby improving the visual effect”; col. 13, lines 5-15, “performing the edge feathering processing on the mask frame data, and drawing the processed mask frame data and the bullet screen information into the frame image according to the video timestamp when playing the video data… The edge feathering processing on the mask frame data is performed, thereby making the edges of the mask frame data softer and more natural.”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Li in view of Su with Gao. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to make the edges of the mask frame data softer and more natural (Gao, col. 13, lines 5-15).
As to claim 22, see similar rejection to claim 9.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
14. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Su et al (US 20230267894 A1), disclosing determining a bullet-screen track/layer among a plurality of bullet-screen track/layers (see e.g., [0051]).
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Nasser Goodarzi, can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
