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 communication filed 12/16/2024. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-22 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-5 and 15-18 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 2 recites “matching the first trajectory from other trajectories except the second trajectory”. It is unclear what entity the first trajectory is matched to. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any entity. Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites “matching the first trajectory from trajectories whose angle with the second trajectory is greater than a first threshold”. It is unclear what entity the first trajectory is matched to. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any entity. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “matching the first trajectory from trajectories which the least cumulative number of usage times”. It is unclear what entity the first trajectory is matched to. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any entity. Claim 17 is similarly rejected.
Claim 5 recites “matching the first trajectory from trajectories with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments”. It is unclear what entity the first trajectory is matched to. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any entity. Claim 18 is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-5, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang (WO 2017166719 A1, Google Patent translation is relied upon) in view of Su et al (US 2023/0282185).
As to claim 1, Shang discloses a dynamic comment display method includes:
determining a first dynamic comment to be displayed in a dynamic comment display area (page 3, paragraph 3, “when receiving the barrage information sent by the server, first detecting whether there is a barrage information in the current preset buffer queue;”);
matching a first trajectory with the first dynamic comment, wherein the dynamic comment display area includes a plurality of trajectories for defining moving tracks of dynamic comments, the plurality of trajectories for defining the moving tracks of the dynamic comments include the first trajectory (page 3, paragraph 3, “when there is a preset that meets the preset condition, In the trajectory, a barrage information is extracted from the preset buffer queue and configured to be displayed on the preset trajectory that meets the preset condition.” See page 2, paragraph 1, “The detecting unit is configured to detect whether the barrage information on each preset trajectory is displayed completely according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to display the bulleted information to display a complete preset trajectory, and determine the preset trajectory that meets the preset condition. The display device for the bullet screen information according to claim 7, wherein The detecting unit is configured to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to determine a preset trajectory that does not have the barrage information as a preset trajectory that meets the preset condition…The display device for the barrage information according to claim 8 or 9, wherein The detecting unit is further configured to detect whether there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition when there is no barrage information in the current preset buffer queue; The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”); and
displaying the first dynamic comment moving along the first trajectory (see citation above, e.g., page 2, paragraph 1, “The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”).
However, Shang 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 Shang with Su. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allow multiple presentation styles (see Su, Figures 2-4).
As to claim 14, Shang 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).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 14.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 11.
As to claim 4, Shang 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; and matching the first trajectory from trajectories with the least cumulative number of usage times (Shang, see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., page 2, paragraph 1, “determine the preset trajectory that meets the preset condition. The display device for the bullet screen information according to claim 7, wherein The detecting unit is configured to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to determine a preset trajectory that does not have the barrage information as a preset trajectory that meets the preset condition…The display device for the barrage information according to claim 8 or 9, wherein The detecting unit is further configured to detect whether there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition when there is no barrage information in the current preset buffer queue; The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”, wherein “to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory” indicates obtaining a cumulative number of current usage times for each trajectory, and wherein the determined “does not have the baggage information as a preset trajectory” indicates zero number of current usage times, which is the least cumulative number of usage times. 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 for, 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, Shang 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 trajectory, wherein the number of co-occurring dynamic comments is a number of dynamic comments currently displayed on the trajectory; and matching the first trajectory from trajectories with the least number of co-occurring dynamic comments (Shang, see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., page 2, paragraph 1, “determine the preset trajectory that meets the preset condition. The display device for the bullet screen information according to claim 7, wherein The detecting unit is configured to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to determine a preset trajectory that does not have the barrage information as a preset trajectory that meets the preset condition…The display device for the barrage information according to claim 8 or 9, wherein The detecting unit is further configured to detect whether there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition when there is no barrage information in the current preset buffer queue; The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”, wherein the detected zero number of co-occurring dynamic comments is a least number of co-occurring dynamic comments).
As to claim 18, see citation in rejection to claim 5.
9. Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qin (CN 111163347 B, Google Patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 2, Shang 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 second trajectory used when displaying a second dynamic comment (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Shang, page 2, paragraph 1, “The detecting unit is configured to detect whether the barrage information on each preset trajectory is displayed completely according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to display the bulleted information to display a complete preset trajectory, …configured to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to determine a preset trajectory that does not have the barrage information as a preset trajectory that meets the preset condition…; The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”, indicating that the current barrage is not displayed on an already used trajectory, wherein an already used trajectory and the respective displayed barrage are a second trajectory and a second dynamic comment respectively); and
matching the first trajectory from other trajectories except the second trajectory (see citation above, wherein the matching the current barrage information to a preset trajectory is to exclude the second trajectory that has been used by another barrage information), but does not expressly disclose that the second dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment.
Qin discloses that a second dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of a first dynamic comment (see page 5, paragraph 8, “the electronic device is taken as a mobile phone for illustration. As shown in fig. 3, the mobile phone displays a target interface 10 (e.g., a playing interface of a video a), where the target interface 10 includes M pieces of barrage information, each piece of barrage information indicates barrage content (e.g., "xxx, nice looking", "xxx, 666", "xxx, good performing effect", "xxx, good matching", etc.) sent by one sender, and the barrage content sent by some senders is the same (e.g., "xxx, nice looking")”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Shang in view of Su with Qin. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to accept same comments from different users (Qin, page 5, paragraph 8).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Shang 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 second trajectory used when displaying a second dynamic comment (see citation in rejection to claim 2, e.g., Shang, page 2, paragraph 1, “The detecting unit is configured to detect whether the barrage information on each preset trajectory is displayed completely according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to display the bulleted information to display a complete preset trajectory, …configured to detect whether there is a barrage information on each preset trajectory according to a preset time interval; and The detecting unit is further configured to determine a preset trajectory that does not have the barrage information as a preset trajectory that meets the preset condition…; The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”, indicating that the current barrage is not displayed on an already used trajectory, wherein an already used trajectory and the respective displayed barrage are a second trajectory and a second dynamic comment respectively); and
matching the first trajectory from trajectories whose angle with the second 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), but does not expressly disclose that the second dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of the first dynamic comment.
Qin discloses that a second dynamic comment being the previous dynamic comment of a first dynamic comment (see page 5, paragraph 8, “the electronic device is taken as a mobile phone for illustration. As shown in fig. 3, the mobile phone displays a target interface 10 (e.g., a playing interface of a video a), where the target interface 10 includes M pieces of barrage information, each piece of barrage information indicates barrage content (e.g., "xxx, nice looking", "xxx, 666", "xxx, good performing effect", "xxx, good matching", etc.) sent by one sender, and the barrage content sent by some senders is the same (e.g., "xxx, nice looking")”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Shang in view of Su with Qin. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to accept same comments from different users (Qin, page 5, paragraph 8).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 3.
10. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang 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, Shang 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, e.g., Shang, page 2, paragraph 1, “The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”), 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 Shang 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 Shang 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, Shang 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, e.g., Shang, page 2, paragraph 1, “The display unit is further configured to: when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”), 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 Shang 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 Shang in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RODGERS (US 2013/0086516).
As to claim 8, Shang 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, e.g., Shang, page 2, paragraph 1, “when the detecting unit detects that there is a preset trajectory that meets a preset condition, the received information of the barrage is configured to be displayed on a preset trajectory that currently meets a preset condition”; and Su, Figure 4); 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 Shang 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 Shang in view of Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US 11871086).
As to claim 9, Shang 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 Shang 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.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights