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 .
This office action is in response to application 18936020 filed on November 4, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated November 27, 2024, July 11, 2025, and August 21, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The examiner notes that the instant specification defines a “computer-readable medium” including transmission media “computer-readable medium in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium ... may include a data signal propagated” ([0117]). Transmission media are forms of energy, per se, and thus currently not believed to fall within a statutory category.
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.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 14-17 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the displaying an interactive control”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 1) recites “displaying an interactive control”. It is unclear whether “displaying an interactive control” refers to “an interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the displaying the interactive control”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the displaying an interactive control”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 1) recites “displaying an interactive control”. It is unclear whether “displaying an interactive control” refers to “an interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the displaying the interactive control”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “displaying a third interactive control in a second style when a target object is displayed”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 3) recites “a third interactive control in a second style when a target object is displayed”. It is unclear whether “displaying a third interactive control” refers to “a third interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “displaying the third interactive control in the second style when the target object is displayed”.
Regarding claim 5, it depends on parent claim 4 and does not address the indefiniteness issue presented therein. As such, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the displaying a search result page”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 1) recites “displaying a search result page”. It is unclear whether “displaying a search result page” refers to “a search result page” recited in the parent claim or a new search result page. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the displaying the search result page”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “for a first preset time”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 1) recites “for a first preset time”. It is unclear whether “for a first preset time” refers to “a first preset time” recited in the parent claim or a new preset time. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “for the first preset time”.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the displaying an interactive control”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 13) recites “displaying an interactive control”. It is unclear whether “displaying an interactive control” refers to “an interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the displaying the interactive control”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the displaying an interactive control”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 13) recites “displaying an interactive control”. It is unclear whether “displaying an interactive control” refers to “an interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the displaying the interactive control”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “displaying a third interactive control in a second style when a target object is displayed”; however, the claim it depends upon (i.e., claim 15) recites “a third interactive control in a second style when a target object is displayed”. It is unclear whether “displaying a third interactive control” refers to “a third interactive control” recited in the parent claim or a new interactive control. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “displaying the third interactive control in the second style when the target object is displayed”.
Regarding claim 17, it depends on parent claim 16 and does not address the indefiniteness issue presented therein. As such, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhry et al. (US7933338B1) in view of Rankine (US20150106856A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choudhry teaches an interaction method, comprising:
displaying a search result page in response to a search operation triggered by a search keyword, the search result page displaying search result content obtained by searching based on the search keyword and multimedia content triggered and displayed by the search keyword … (Referring now to FIG. 2, it is a flowchart illustrating a method of providing video content as a result of a search query ... The method begins by receiving 210 input initiating a query for video content ... Next one or more video articles are identified 220 corresponding to the query ... Video search results can be returned as a result set formatted as a list or grid to the client from which the search query originated, examples of which are shown in FIGS. 9 a-b. Each search result can comprise a video article identifier, a thumbnail image, a search term index, and text)(column 5 lines 44-48, column 6 lines 4-5 and lines 35-40; Figures 9a-b - exemplary display of search results comprising multimedia and result content (e.g., article identifiers) is shown);
Although Choudhry discloses that multimedia content is displayed for time periods (the user selects an icon within a thumbnail associated with a video article, causing the video article to play)(column 7 lines 15-17).
Choudhry differs from the claim in that Choudhry fails to teach displaying a control after the multimedia content is displayed for a first preset time, wherein the control being used to trigger a display of a landing page corresponding to the multimedia content and displaying the landing page in response to a triggering operation for the control.
However, displaying a control after multimedia content is displayed for a first preset time, wherein the control being used to trigger a display of a landing page corresponding to the multimedia content and displaying the landing page in response to a triggering operation for the control is taught by Rankine (During playback, the user 20 may view the video content 30 along with integrated product placements (“integrated products 80”) ... The video content 30 may include metadata 90 ... The metadata 90 may include a listing of video segments containing integrated products 80 ... the media player 60 may include two or more different interactive user interface states, such as: a product scrollbar state 100 (FIG. 2), and an interactive screen state 200 (FIG. 3). Both ... include a video frame 150 for displaying the video content 30 and a product information ... As shown in FIG. 4, detailed product information of an integrated product 80 may appear in a popup window 400 when the user 20 clicks a product details link 170)([0051], [0054], [0055], and [0070]; Figures 2 and 3 - displaying controls (i.e. product elements) at corresponding time segments as multimedia is playback is shown, additionally, displaying a landing page (i.e., corresponding detailed product information) upon user selection of a control is shown in Figure 4).
The examiner notes Choudhry and Rankine teach a presenting of multimedia. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choudhry to include the displaying of Rankine such that a control is displayed after multimedia content is displayed for a first preset time, wherein the control being used to trigger a display of a landing page corresponding to the multimedia content and the landing page is displayed in response to a triggering operation for the control. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing a user to easily identify and access information of products within multimedia.
Regarding claim 3, Choudhry-Rankine teach the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying an interactive control comprises: displaying the interactive control in at least one of the following ways: displaying a first interactive control in a preset fixed style; and displaying a second interactive control in a first style, wherein the first style is determined based on the search keyword; and displaying a third interactive control in a second style when a target object is displayed in the multimedia content, wherein the second style is determined based on the target object (Rankine - the media player 60 may include two or more different interactive user interface states, such as: a product scrollbar state 100 (FIG. 2), and an interactive screen state 200 (FIG. 3))([0055]; Figures 2 and 3 – presenting product elements in fixed (i.e., window) style is shown).
Regarding claim 6, Choudhry-Rankine teach the interaction method according to claim 3, wherein the target object is a product object (Rankine - During playback, the user 20 may view the video content 30 along with integrated product placements (“integrated products 80”))([0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Choudhry-Rankine teach the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the search result page displays a fourth interactive control for triggering and displaying the target landing page, and the interaction method further comprises: after the interactive control is displayed for a second preset time and the interactive control is not triggered, moving the interactive control from a current display position to a preset area of the fourth interactive control for display according to a preset path (Rankine – In an interactive screen state 200, product hotspots 220 may be provided within the image of the integrated products 80 within the video frame 150 ... a main product category link 290 may be provided to permit the user 20 to view all integrated products 80 in a list sorted by category)([0064] and [0067]; product elements are displayed for a given time segment, after the time segment passes the control product elements are moved to another area which is selectable to trigger viewing of corresponding detailed product information).
Regarding claim 10, Choudhry-Rankine teach the interaction method according to claim 8, wherein the interaction method further comprises: displaying the target landing page in response to a trigger operation for the fourth interactive control (Rankine – a main product category link 290 may be provided to permit the user 20 to view all integrated products 80 in a list sorted by category)([0067]; a user interacts with the control (i.e., main product link) to select and display detailed product information).
Regarding claim 11, Choudhry-Rankine teach the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the multimedia content is at least one of video content, audio content, and picture content (Choudhry - The present invention relates to information retrieval systems generally, and more particularly to systems and methods for querying for and navigating video content)(column 1 lines 33-35).
Regarding computer-readable medium claim 12, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 1, and recites similar features in computer-readable medium form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding device claims 13, 15, 18, and 20 the claim generally corresponds to method claims 1, 3, 8, and 10, respectively, and recites similar features in device form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhry, Rankine, and in view of Yoch et al. (US20020059117A1).
Regarding claim 2, Choudhry-Rankine teach the method as applied above, wherein the interactive control is displayed in window form (Rankine - the media player 60 may include two or more different interactive user interface states, such as: a product scrollbar state 100 (FIG. 2), and an interactive screen state 200 (FIG. 3))([0055]; Figures 2 and 3 – presenting product elements such as product information in window form is shown).
Choudhry-Rankine differs from the claim in that Choudhry-Rankine fails to teach displaying the window in pop-up form.
However, displaying product information window in pop-up form is taught by Yoch (the link may be automatically activated when the corresponding product or service is indicated in the streaming video. When so provided, a separate pop-up window may be provided to display the additional information related to the one or more products or services ... Alternatively, a designated area or region within the current window may be updated to display the additional information related to the one or more products or services)([0023]).
The examiner notes Choudhry, Rankine, and Yoch teach a presenting of multimedia. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choudhry-Rankine to include the displaying of Yoch such that a pop-up window is displayed. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of presenting product information in an attention grabbing manner.
Regarding device claim 14, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 2, and recites similar features in device form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhry, Rankine, and in view of Incorvia (US20120167146A1).
Regarding claim 4, Choudhry-Rankine teach the method as applied above, wherein a control is displayed in a style when a target object (i.e., product label) is displayed in the multimedia content (Rankine - During playback, the user 20 may view the video content 30 along with integrated product placements (“integrated products 80”) … the media player 60 may include two or more different interactive user interface states, such as: a product scrollbar state 100 (FIG. 2), and an interactive screen state 200 (FIG. 3). Both ... include a video frame 150 for displaying the video content 30 and a product information … Additionally, a product name label 270 may popup over the product image 120)([0051], [0055], and [0059]).
Choudhry-Rankine differs from the claim in that Choudhry-Rankine fails to teach using the target object displayed in the multimedia content as a control and moving the control from a display position of the target object to an upper layer of a page.
However, using a target object displayed in the multimedia content as a control and moving the control from a display position of the target object to an upper layer of a page is taught by Incorvia (The interactive objects may be defined as mapped video objects to identify objects ... thereby creating a selectable video object ... each selectable video object may have an object selection marker ... the object selection markers may have different characteristics based on the objects to which they correspond ... FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a video frame in which various object selection markers 48 are displayed … the selectable video object may be a dynamic object that moves in association with a trackable object displayed in the video media)([0036], [0041], [0042], [0047], and [0085]; Figure 3 – using product markers displayed in multimedia content as controls is shown, the markers move from a display position (i.e., initial display position) to an upper layer (i.e., the positioning follows a trackable object as it moves up and down pixel rows).
The examiner notes Choudhry, Rankine, and Incorvia teach a presenting of multimedia. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choudhry-Rankine to include the using and moving of Incorvia such that a target object displayed in multimedia content is used as a control and the control moves from a display position of the target object to an upper layer of a page. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of improving how a user can identify and obtain additional information about items in multimedia.
Regarding claim 5, Choudhry-Rankine-Incorvia teach the interaction method according to claim 4, wherein the moving the third interactive control from a display position of the target object in the multimedia content to an upper layer of the search result page for display comprises: moving the third interactive control from the display position of the target object in the multimedia content to the upper layer of the search result page for display according to a first preset animation effect (Incorvia - the selectable video object may be a dynamic object that moves in association with a trackable object displayed in the video media)([0085]; markers move in a preset animation manner (i.e., follows a trackable object)).
Regarding claim 7, Choudhry-Rankine teach the method as applied above, wherein the search result page displays multimedia content in a first display area of the search result page and displays search result content in a second display area of the search result page, wherein the first area is different than the second area (Choudhry - Video search results can be returned as a result set formatted as a list or grid to the client from which the search query originated, examples of which are shown in FIGS. 9 a-b. Each search result can comprise a video article identifier, a thumbnail image, a search term index, and text)(column 6 lines 35-40; Figures 9a-b - exemplary display of search results comprising presenting multimedia and result content (e.g., article identifiers) in different areas is shown) and displaying the control after the multimedia content is displayed for the first preset time (Rankine - During playback, the user 20 may view the video content 30 along with integrated product placements (“integrated products 80”) ... the media player 60 may include two or more different interactive user interface states, such as: a product scrollbar state 100 (FIG. 2), and an interactive screen state 200 (FIG. 3). Both ... include a video frame 150 for displaying the video content 30 and a product information)([0051] and [0055]; Figures 2 and 3 - displaying controls (i.e. product elements) at corresponding time segments as multimedia is playback is shown).
Choudhry-Rankine differs from the claim in that Choudhry-Rankine fails to teach displaying the control in the same area as the multimedia content.
However, displaying a control in a same area as a multimedia content is taught by Incorvia (The interactive objects may be defined as mapped video objects to identify objects ... thereby creating a selectable video object ... each selectable video object may have an object selection marker ..... FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a video frame in which various object selection markers 48 are displayed)([0036], [0041], and [0047]; Figure – displaying controls in same area (i.e., within) multimedia content is shown).
The examiner notes Choudhry, Rankine, and Incorvia teach a presenting of multimedia. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choudhry-Rankine to include the displaying of Incorvia such a control is displayed in a same area as multimedia content. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of improving how a user can identify and obtain additional information about items in multimedia.
Regarding device claims 16 and 17 the claim generally corresponds to method claims 4 and 5, respectively, and recites similar features in device form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhry, Rankine, and in view of Missig et al. (US20160344972A1).
Regarding claim 9, Choudhry-Rankine teach the method as applied above, wherein the control moves to the preset area (Rankine – In an interactive screen state 200, product hotspots 220 may be provided within the image of the integrated products 80 within the video frame 150 ... a main product category link 290 may be provided to permit the user 20 to view all integrated products 80 in a list sorted by category)([0064] and [0067]; product elements are displayed for a given time segment, after the time segment passes the control product elements are moved to another area which is selectable to trigger viewing of corresponding detailed product information).
Choudhry-Rankine differs from the claim in that Choudhry-Rankine fails to teach displaying an animation during movement.
However, displaying an animation while a display object is moved is taught by Missig (FIG. 6E illustrates image 610 of object 608 being animated by the electronic device further along the trajectory from video data 606 to its final location)([0142]).
The examiner notes Choudhry, Rankine, and Missig teach a presenting of multimedia. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choudhry-Rankine to include the displaying of Missig such that an animation is displayed during movement. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of a moving displayed objects in an attention grabbing manner.
Regarding device claim 19, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 9, and recites similar features in device form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for presenting controls during multimedia playback.
US20080098425A1
US20080181575A1
US20090092374A1
US20100154007A1
US20120266197A1
US20130036442A1
US20150289022A1
US20180152764A1
US20180255363A1
US6188398B1
US8561106B1
US9560415B2
US10021458B2
US10638198B2
US10726452B2
US11653066B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights