DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. US 2010/0077428 hereinafter referred to as Arnold in view of Van Os et al. US 2015/0382047 hereinafter referred to as Van Os.
In regards to claim 1, Arnold teaches:
“A method for a display apparatus, comprising: displaying an instructive icon over a playing-video on the display apparatus, the instructive icon being used for instructing a user to acquire information corresponding to a video content currently displayed”
Arnold Figure 5 and paragraph [0032] teach the frame depicts a woman wearing a wedding dress, standing in a room, with her back to the viewer's perspective. In the present example, the viewer has indicated to have indicators displayed. Accordingly, sunburst icons 502, 504, and 506 appear on the dress, table, and plant, respectively. The icons may persist for a preselected period of time, and indicate that there is meta data corresponding to each of the depicted items.
“in response to an input instruction from the user, identifying at least one target object in the video content and one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object”
Arnold Figure 5 and paragraph [0032] teaches a cursor 508 may be directed by the user, via the user interface provided by the video information processor, to the icons to select the icon. Any item selected by the user may then have its associated meta data filtered by the viewer's profile. Arnold paragraph [0031] teaches the exemplary profile 400 includes keywords 402. The keywords relate to interests of the viewer.
“[presenting results based on] the at least one target object and the one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object”
Arnold paragraph [0034] teaches once the appropriate meta data is processed against the profile or profiles, the results are provided to the viewer 714. The results may be provided in response to a viewer selecting a marked item during the video, as the marked item appears. The results may also be shown by default at the end of a program containing tagged items. The results may be displayed on the video display, or may be made available by other means.
Arnold does not explicitly teach:
“and providing a display layer over the playing video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target [subject search results]”
Van Os Figure 4C teaches receipt of a command asking for a target subject of sporting events. Figure 5 illustrates selectable videos 512 which are equivalent to thumbnail images. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “and providing a display layer over the playing video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target [subject search results]” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 2, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein: the input instruction from the user includes a [cursor] input instruction; and the at least one target object in the video content and the one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object are identified [and results are displayed to the user]”
Arnold Figure 5 and paragraph [0032] teaches a cursor 508 may be directed by the user, via the user interface provided by the video information processor, to the icons to select the icon. Any item selected by the user may then have its associated meta data filtered by the viewer's profile. Arnold paragraph [0030] and Figure 3 teach the matching engine takes meta data 304 and compares it with a search profile 306 to produce a viewer interest result 308. The profile 306 may be a general profile, a user or viewer-specific profile, or a compilation of profiles. Each profile indicates certain interests by, for example, the use of keywords provided by the viewer. Likewise, the meta data includes keywords relating to items depicted in the video program.
Arnold does not explicitly teach:
“voice [input instruction]” and “[results are identified] and displayed to the user, after receiving the voice input instruction from the user”
Van Os Figures 4A-C teach inputting and receiving a voice instruction. Figure 5 illustrates the displayed results. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “voice [input instruction]” and “[results are identified] and displayed to the user, after receiving the voice input instruction from the user” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 3, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“further comprising: in response to a keyword selected from the one or more keywords, displaying one or more [results] corresponding to the selected keyword associated with the at least one target object”
Arnold Figure 5 and paragraph [0032] teaches a cursor 508 may be directed by the user, via the user interface provided by the video information processor, to the icons to select the icon. Any item selected by the user may then have its associated meta data filtered by the viewer's profile. Arnold paragraph [0030] and Figure 3 teach the matching engine takes meta data 304 and compares it with a search profile 306 to produce a viewer interest result 308. The profile 306 may be a general profile, a user or viewer-specific profile, or a compilation of profiles. Each profile indicates certain interests by, for example, the use of keywords provided by the viewer. Likewise, the meta data includes keywords relating to items depicted in the video program.
Arnold does not explicitly teach:
“content recommendation tabs”
Van Os Figure 5 teaches recommended videos 512. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “voice [input instruction]” and “content recommendation tabs” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 4, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches:
“further comprising: in response to a selection for at least one content recommendation tab from the one or more content recommendation tabs, displaying recommended content related to the at least one target object corresponding to the selected key word”
Van Os Figures 7A-B illustrates the displayed video from selectable video link 620 or Figure 6B. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “further comprising: in response to a selection for at least one content recommendation tab from the one or more content recommendation tabs, displaying recommended content related to the at least one target object corresponding to the selected key word” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 5, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches:
“wherein: the one or more recommendation tabs comprise a webpage text, an image, a TV program related video, or shopping information”
Van Os Figure 6B teaches at least image. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “wherein: the one or more recommendation tabs comprise a webpage text, an image, a TV program related video, or shopping information” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 10, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches:
“further comprising: obtaining a plurality of images at different time points; and storing the plurality of images in a preset image storage region”
The Examiner interprets that this limitations is equivalent to recording video. Van Os teaches in Figure 26 an embodiment in which another display layer is used to display information and includes a prompt to schedule a recording for next week. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “further comprising: obtaining a plurality of images at different time points; and storing the plurality of images in a preset image storage region” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 11, Arnold teaches:
“A display apparatus, comprising: a display configured to display content from a broadcast system or network and/or a user interface; a memory storing computer instructions and data associated with the display; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the display, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to perform:”
Figure 1 and paragraphs [0018] teach the apparatus at least.
Arnold/Van Os further teach:
“displaying an instructive icon over a playing-video on the display, the instructive icon being used for instructing a user to acquire information corresponding to a video content currently displayed; in response to an input instruction from the user, identifying at least one target object in the video content and one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object; and providing a display layer over the playing-video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target object and the one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object”
These limitations are substantially analogous to those of claim 1 however used in the apparatus claim. Therefore, these features are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1. See claim 1.
In regards to claim 12, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 12 contains similar limitations as in claim 2. Therefore claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 13 contains similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3.
In regards to claim 14, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and claim 14 contains similar limitations as in claim 4. Therefore claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 4.
In regards to claim 15, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and claim 15 contains similar limitations as in claim 5. Therefore claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 5.
In regards to claim 20, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 20 contains similar limitations as in claim 10. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim10.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Van Os in view of Shin et al. US 2014/0181863 hereinafter referred to as Shin.
In regards to claim 6, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach:
“further comprising: in response to the displaying of the recommended content, indicating an action triggered by information based on the displayed recommended content related to the at least one target object”
Shin paragraph [0044] teaches multiple services that may be associated with object 220 may include searching for content, recommending content, displaying content, displaying an advertisement, recommending a service, and/or searching a map. As referenced herein, the "content" that may searched, recommended, and/or displayed may include, as non-limiting examples, a review of the selected object, a photo of the selected object, additional information regarding the selected object (e.g., a name, a cost, a color, a size, etc.) or a publication article regarding the selected object. Shin paragraph [0045] teaches as depicted in FIG. 2D, end device 105 may be configured to display, on the display, a web page 240 that sells selected object 220 (e.g., a necklace). The Examiner interprets that a “BUY” button or a hyperlink is equivalent to indicating an action triggered by information based on the displayed recommended content. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold/Van Os in view of Shin to have included the features of “further comprising: in response to the displaying of the recommended content, indicating an action triggered by information based on the displayed recommended content related to the at least one target” to provide a service that integrates security of a telecommunication network, content provided by a broadcast television network and features of the Internet; and may further provide voice, data, and video services over one connection simultaneously. Therefore, a user may use a client device to not only make calls, access the Internet, and watch TV, but also enjoy more data, voice, and video integrated services through the IPTV service, serially or in parallel (Shin [0002]).
In regards to claim 7, Arnold/Van Os/Shin teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches:
“wherein: the information includes shopping information from a third-party site displayed in another display layer; and the action indicated includes a purchase action”
Shin Figure 2D. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold/Van Os in view of Shin to have included the features of “wherein: the information includes shopping information from a third-party site displayed in another display layer; and the action indicated includes a purchase action” to provide a service that integrates security of a telecommunication network, content provided by a broadcast television network and features of the Internet; and may further provide voice, data, and video services over one connection simultaneously. Therefore, a user may use a client device to not only make calls, access the Internet, and watch TV, but also enjoy more data, voice, and video integrated services through the IPTV service, serially or in parallel (Shin [0002]).
In regards to claim 8, Arnold/Van Os/Shin teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches:
“wherein: the information includes program information displayed in another display layer; and the action indicated includes a program scheduling action”
Van Os teaches in Figure 26 an embodiment in which another display layer is used to display information and includes a prompt to schedule a recording for next week. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “wherein: the information includes program information displayed in another display layer; and the action indicated includes a program scheduling action” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
In regards to claim 16, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 16 contains similar limitations as in claim 6. Therefore claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, Arnold/Van Os/Shin teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7.
In regards to claim 18, Arnold/Van Os/Shin teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and claim 18 contains similar limitations as in claim 8. Therefore claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Van Os in view of Takaichi et al. US 2015/0281325 hereinafter referred to as Takaichi.
In regards to claim 9, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“further comprising: displaying a share tab for sharing an image captured from the playing-video”
Takaichi paragraph [0079] teaches when the acceptance unit 104 accepts operation information of the SHARE button 81, the recording instruction section 162 supplies a capturing instruction of a screenshot to the screenshot generation section 118 and supplies an instruction to stop background recording to the recording controlling section 132. Consequently, the screenshot generation section 118 captures a screenshot of a game image at a point of time at which the capturing instruction is accepted. Figure 10 illustrates a share tab for sharing with different services. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold/Van Os in view of Takaichi to have included the features of “further comprising: displaying a share tab for sharing an image captured from the playing-video” because it is preferable for information to be shared efficiently not only in a game but also in a different type of a network service in which a plurality of information processing apparatus are connected to each other (Takaichi [0003]).
In regards to claim 19, Arnold/Van Os teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as in claim 9. Therefore claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues that Arnold fails to disclose:
“providing a display layer over the playing-video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target object and the one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object” (as recited in independent Claims 1 and 11).
“identifying at least one target object in the video content, and one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object” (as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 11.
Applicant further argues that Van Os does not cure the deficiencies. The Examiner is not persuaded because the rejection using a combination of Arnold and Van Os to teach the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Arnold teaches “identifying at least one target object in the video content and one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object.” For clarification, Arnold Figure 5 and paragraph [0032] teaches a cursor 508 may be directed by the user, via the user interface provided by the video information processor, to the icons to select the icon. Any item selected by the user may then have its associated meta data filtered by the viewer's profile. Arnold paragraph [0031] teaches the exemplary profile 400 includes keywords 402. The keywords relate to interests of the viewer. The Examiner interprets that the selected icons are target objects in the video and as indicated have an exemplary profile 400 with associated keywords 402. Therefore, Arnold does in fact teach this limitation.
Arnold further teaches “[presenting results based on] the at least one target object and the one or more keywords associated with the at least one target object”
Arnold paragraph [0034] teaches once the appropriate meta data is processed against the profile or profiles, the results are provided to the viewer 714. The results may be provided in response to a viewer selecting a marked item during the video, as the marked item appears. The results may also be shown by default at the end of a program containing tagged items. The results may be displayed on the video display, or may be made available by other means.
Arnold is deficient in the features of providing the display layer over the playing video with the thumbnail image. However, Van Os teaches “and providing a display layer over the playing video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target [subject search results]”
For clarification, Van Os Figure 4C teaches receipt of a command asking for a target subject of sporting events. Figure 5 illustrates selectable videos 512 which are equivalent to thumbnail images. These thumbnail images are search results with associated keywords from the search query. The Examiner interprets that combining the search results of the target object associated with keywords known from Arnold with the display layer for providing the search results over the playing video in a thumbnail would produce the claimed invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Arnold in view of Van Os to have included the features of “and providing a display layer over the playing video, the display layer presenting a thumbnail image containing the at least one target [subject search results]” because with the growing sources of media available through such devices (e.g., over-the-air TV, subscription TV service, streaming video services, cable on-demand video services, web-based video services, etc.), it can be cumbersome or even overwhelming for some users to find desired media content to consume. As a result, many media control devices can provide an inferior user experience that can be frustrating for many users (Van Os [0005]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights