DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 and 03/14/2025 was filed before the mailing date of a first action. The submission 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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "verifying that enhancing the corresponding UI element is consistent with the one or more actions of the user" (claims 8, 14), "ensuring that a number of times the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item is below a threshold number" (claims 9, 15), "wherein the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item according to a priority order" (claim 10), "determining whether a UI enhancement feature is enabled or disabled based on user input or capability of the user device; and responsive to determining that the UI enhancement feature is enabled, enhancing the corresponding UI element on the UI of the content platform" (claims 11, 16, 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9, 10, and 15 recite the term "payback" which has been interpreted as "playback".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "processing device is to perform operations []" in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure ("Processor (processing device) 1102 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit" [paragraph 0126]) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites "the media item in the media metadata data structure" which lacks antecedent basis and is unclear if the "media item" refers to the "one of a plurality of media items" associated with the media metadata data structure as recited in the instant claim or the played "media item" as recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites "the media item" which is unclear if the "media item" refers to the "one of a plurality of media items" or the "media item" as recited in parent claim 2 or the played "media item" as recited in parent claim 1.
Claims 8 and 14 recite the term “consistent” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The verification has been rendered indefinite by the use of "consistent", because it is not possible to determine what type of enhancing the corresponding UI element would be considered consistent with the one or more actions of the user.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7, and 13 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 2.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (US 20080163283 A1).
As to claim 1, Tan discloses a method comprising:
providing, for presentation on a user device of a user, a user interface (UI) of a content platform to play a media item, the UI comprising a plurality of UI elements [Fig. 3, para 0027, 0047-0048, client device video player application (read: user interface) including thumbnails (read: UI elements) displays video content (read: media item) from video server (read: content platform)];
detecting, during playback of the media item via the UI of the content platform, an occurrence of an audio-visual cue, within the media item, for the user to engage with the UI of the content platform [para 0047-0049, encounter cue point (read: occurrence) of product (read: audio-visual cue) appearing video clip displayed in video player interface, note the limitation "for the user to engage with the UI of the content platform" is not being given patentable weight as the terms "for" and "to" suggest or make optional and do not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "audio-visual cue" as recited in the claim (see MPEP 2111.04); nevertheless, note cue point features product for user purchase (read: engagement) from video interface];
identifying, among the plurality of UI elements of the UI, a UI element corresponding to the audio-visual cue for the user to engage with the UI of the content platform [para 0047-0049, show current thumbnail (read: UI element) of thumbnails associated with encountered product, note the limitation "for the user to engage with the UI of the content platform" is not being given patentable weight as the terms "for" and "to" suggest or make optional and do not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "UI element" as recited in the claim; nevertheless, note thumbnail features product for user purchase from video interface]; and
causing the corresponding UI element to be enhanced on the UI of the content platform [Fig. 3, para 0048-0049, video interface emphasizes (read: enhance) thumbnail at cue point to show current highlighted product].
As to claim 8, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting one or more actions of the user [para 0058, determine factoid appearance control is enabled by user control]; and
prior to causing the corresponding UI element to be enhanced, verifying that enhancing the corresponding UI element is consistent with the one or more actions of the user [para 0058, determine appearance of factoid with product thumbnail is enabled (read: verified as consistent) when user enables factoid control].
As to claim 10, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item according to a priority order [Fig. 3, para 0048-0049, 0064, video interface emphasizes thumbnail while displaying video at current cue point in sequential cue points (read: priority order)].
As to claim 11, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the corresponding UI element to be enhanced on the UI of the content platform comprises:
determining whether a UI enhancement feature is enabled or disabled based on user input or capability of the user device [para 0058, determine factoid appearance (rea: UI enhancement feature) is enabled or disabled by user control]; and
responsive to determining that the UI enhancement feature is enabled, enhancing the corresponding UI element on the UI of the content platform [para 0058, note the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the contingent limitation of "enhancing the corresponding UI element on the UI of the content platform" to be performed if the conditional "responsive to determining that the UI enhancement feature is enabled" does not occur (see MPEP 2111.04); nevertheless, note video interface including product thumbnail displays factoid at cue point when factoid control is enabled and displayed factoid fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of enhancing including displaying text next to an element as consistent with Applicant's specification (para 0030)].
As to claim 12, Tan discloses a system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to perform operations [para 0027, claim 11, system includes media and processor running application] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 14 and 16, Tan discloses the system of claim 12 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 8 and 11, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 17, Tan discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations [para 0027, claim 11, system includes media storing instructions and processor executing application] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 20, Tan discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 11 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.
The factual inquiries 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) 2-7, 9, 13, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US 20210150222 A1).
As to claim 2, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the occurrence of the audio-visual cue within the media item further comprises:
accessing a media metadata data structure comprising a plurality of entries each associated with one of a plurality of media items [Fig. 13, para 0064-0066, data structure for video content includes cue points (read: entries) corresponding to video content (read: media items)];
identifying, using an entry associated with the media item in the media metadata data structure, a plurality of visual enhancement annotations each corresponding to one of a plurality of audio-visual cues [para 0064-0066, data structure includes cue point (read: entry) and contextual information (read: visual enhancement annotations) responsive to cue points corresponding to products]; and
selecting, at a first point in time during the playback of the media item, one of the plurality of visual enhancement annotations that has a time[] matching the first point in time, the selected visual enhancement annotation being associated with the audio-visual cue in the media metadata data structure [para 0047-0049, 0065-0066, 0070-0071, at a time (read: first point in time) when displayed video encounters cue point, serve (read: select) contextual information at time synchronized with displayed video event responsive to cue point stored in data structure].
However, Tan does not specifically disclose wherein "a time[]" is "a timestamp".
Evans discloses a timestamp [Fig. 1, para 0021-0023, point of time range of noteworthy portion].
Tan and Evans are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of video annotation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the visual enhancement annotation time as disclosed by Tan with the timestamp as disclosed by Evans with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tan as described above to help seamless video navigation [Evans, para 0017].
As to claim 3, Tan discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the UI element corresponding to the audio-visual cue is associated with the selected visual enhancement annotation in the media metadata data structure [para 0048-0049, 0064-0066, display thumbnail at cue point and contextual information responsive to cue points stored in data structure].
As to claim 4, Tan discloses the method of claim 2, wherein causing the corresponding UI element to be enhanced on the UI of the content platform comprises: using a visual enhancement setting of the selected visual enhancement annotation to enhance the corresponding UI element, wherein the visual enhancement setting dictates how to enhance the corresponding UI element [para 0047-0048, 0066-0067, 0071, data structure includes contextual information configuring emphasizing thumbnail each time cue point reached in displayed video].
As to claim 5, Tan discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the visual enhancement setting is one of: [para 0047-0048, 0066-0067, enlarge thumbnail from initial thumbnail to emphasize thumbnail, note strikethrough indicates non-selected alternatives],
As to claim 6, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding UI element is one of a [] button [Fig. 3, para 0047-0049, emphasized thumbnail acts as control], a share button, a subscribe button, a join button, a comment section, or a description section.
However, Tan does not specifically disclose wherein "a [] button" is "a like button".
Evans discloses a like button [Figs. 1, 3A, para 0023, 0031, user input expressing like reaction, also note Figure 3A shows a thumbs up or like button in the input bar].
Tan and Evans are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of video annotation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the button as disclosed by Tan with a like button as disclosed by Evans with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tan as described above to crowdsource information from user engagement [Evans, para 0018].
As to claim 7, Tan discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
generating the plurality of visual enhancement annotations for the media item, wherein each of the plurality of visual enhancement annotations identify a respective audio-visual cue, a time[] associated with an occurrence of the respective audio-visual cue within the media item, and a UI element associated with the respective audio-visual cue [para 0030-0031, 0064-0066, define contextual information in video including image of product present in video (read: respective audio-visual cue), video frame in which product appears in video, and thumbnail of product (read: UI element)]; and
adding the entry comprising the plurality of visual enhancement annotations for the media item to the media metadata data structure [para 0030-0031, 0064-0069, define cue point and contextual information in file data structure stored for video].
However, Tan does not specifically disclose wherein "a time[]" is "a timestamp".
Evans discloses a timestamp [Fig. 1, para 0021-0023, point of time range of noteworthy portion].
Tan and Evans are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of video annotation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time associated with an occurrence as disclosed by Tan with a timestamp as disclosed by Evans with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tan as described above to help seamless video navigation [Evans, para 0017].
As to claim 9, Tan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the corresponding UI element to be enhanced on the UI of the content platform [para 0047-0049, 0064-0066, emphasize thumbnail] but not explicitly further comprising ensuring that a number of times the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item is below a threshold number.
However, Tan teaches a number of times the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item [para 0047-0049, 0064-0066, data structure includes number of cue points indicating emphasis of thumbnail] and Evans teaches ensuring that a number of times a highlight occurs during payback of the media item is below a threshold number [para 0021-0022, 0034, predict number of noteworthy portions in broadcast video based on video length].
Tan and Evans are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of video annotation systems. Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Tan enhancing a UI element of a video portion a number of times to the teachings of Evans identifying a number of video portions below a threshold number with a reasonable expectation of success to result in ensuring that a number of times the corresponding UI element is enhanced during payback of the media item is below a threshold number [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Tan to help seamless video navigation [Evans, para 0017].
As to claims 13 and 15, Tan and Evans, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the system of claim 12 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and 9, respectively, and are and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 18 and 19, Tan and Evans, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fein et al. (US 10620801 B1), disclosed more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the same assignee, generally discloses enhancing video content base on identifying audio-visual cues during playback of a media item.
Shi (US 20240205505 A1) generally discloses detecting occurrence of audio-visual cues based on user engagement of media content.
Zang et al. (US 20220321974 A1) generally discloses enhancing a UI element, including like and follow buttons, based on identifying occurrence of an audio-visual cue during playback of a media item.
Bakshi et al. (US 20260012663 A1), disclosed less than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the same assignee, generally discloses highlighting or animating a join button in response to detecting membership mention in a video.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights