DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 6, 13 have been amended to overcome the double patenting rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments overcome the double patenting rejection (see updated rejection below).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,560 in view of Obara et al. (US Pat. 10,063,911), herein referenced as Obara.
Instant Application Claim 1
US Pat. 12,267,560 Claim 1
A method comprising: making, to the user when a first video clip in a first video is playing, a first query whether the user wants to watch a second video clip having a same plot as the first video clip;
A method comprising: … querying, when a first start location of the first video clip is played, a user whether to watch a second video clip having a same plot as the first video clip at the same time as the first video clip;
obtaining a confirmation operation of the user in response to the first query;
obtaining a confirmation operation of the user;
sending, to a video cloud platform in response to the confirmation operation, a same plot clip request indicating the first video clip;
sending, in response to the confirmation operation, a same plot clip request of the first video clip to a video cloud platform;
receiving, from the video cloud platform in response to the same plot clip request, the second video clip; and
… playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
receiving, from the video cloud platform, a second video corresponding to the second video clip, a second start location of the second video clip, and a first end location of the second video clip; and playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
The claim in the instant application recites the additional limitation of simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
Nevertheless, Obara discloses simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface (Col. 12 lines 5-29, Fig. 1, i.e., displaying a live video and a catch-up video in a PIP catch-up window. Display screen 100 displays a live video, such as a sporting event. When playback of a catch-up video is initiated, processes for which are described below, a PIP catch-up window 102 may be displayed in an overlay on top of the live video). It would have been obvious to include simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface in claim 1 of patent 12,267,560 for the benefit of saving time by multitasking by watching multiple videos at once.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 4.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 5.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 7.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 9.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 11.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 12.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 14.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 15.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 17.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 18.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 19.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 20.
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, 5-9, 13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. (US Pub. 2015/0063781) in view of Obara et al. (US Pat. 10,063,911), herein referenced as Silverman and Obara, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Silverman discloses “A method comprising: presenting to a user when a first video clip in a first video is playing, a first query as to whether the user wants to watch a second video clip having a same plot as the first video clip ([0005], [0027]-[0028], [0030], Fig. 1, i.e., a user may be alerted to the availability of related content via an indicator 20. The user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content. The navigation pane 14 has a selection of related scenes 16a-d that are related to the current scene being played in the primary viewing area 12. The related scenes may feature similar characters, relate to the same subplot, feature a similar catchphrase, or any other relation, as indicated by the metadata tags on the clips);
obtaining a confirmation operation of the user in response to the first query ([0030], Fig. 1, i.e., the user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content);
sending, to a video cloud platform in response to the confirmation operation, a same plot clip request indicating the first video clip ([0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0028], [0031], Fig. 1, i.e., using metadata tags to search related video content on a video content server);
receiving, from the video cloud platform in response to the same plot clip request, the second video clip; and … playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.” ([0027]-[0028], Fig. 1, i.e., the related scenes 16 are selectable by the user, and may lead the user to a particular scene, or, alternatively, may lead the user to a list of related scenes. For example, the first related scene 16a may relate to the current scene's subplot. Selection of the related scene may cause the current scene in the primary viewing area 12 to pause, and then a small overlay window 18 may play the related scene).
Silverman discloses playing a related scene in a small overlay window over primary viewing area (Fig. 1), however fails to explicitly disclose simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
Obara teaches the technique of simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface (Col. 12 lines 5-29, Fig. 1, i.e., displaying a live video and a catch-up video in a PIP catch-up window. Display screen 100 displays a live video, such as a sporting event. When playback of a catch-up video is initiated, processes for which are described below, a PIP catch-up window 102 may be displayed in an overlay on top of the live video).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface as taught by Obara, to improve the video navigation system of Silverman for the predictable result of saving time by multitasking by watching multiple videos at once.
Regarding claim 5, Silverman discloses “wherein before presenting the first query, the method further comprises: sending, to the video cloud platform, a watching request of the first video; receiving, in response to the watching request and from the video cloud platform, the first video; and playing the first video.” ([0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0028], [0031], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., presentation of video content from a video content server).
Regarding claim 6, Silverman discloses “A method implemented by a video cloud platform, wherein the method comprises: receiving, from a terminal device, same plot clip request indicating a first video clip in a first video ([0005], [0027]-[0028], [0030], Fig. 1, i.e., a user may be alerted to the availability of related content via an indicator 20. The user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content. The navigation pane 14 has a selection of related scenes 16a-d that are related to the current scene being played in the primary viewing area 12. The related scenes may feature similar characters, relate to the same subplot, feature a similar catchphrase, or any other relation, as indicated by the metadata tags on the clips); and
sending, to the terminal device in response to the same plot clip request, a second video corresponding to a second video clip to enable the terminal device to … playing a part of all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.” ([0027]-[0028], Fig. 1, i.e., the related scenes 16 are selectable by the user, and may lead the user to a particular scene, or, alternatively, may lead the user to a list of related scenes. For example, the first related scene 16a may relate to the current scene's subplot. Selection of the related scene may cause the current scene in the primary viewing area 12 to pause, and then a small overlay window 18 may play the related scene).
Silverman discloses playing a related scene in a small overlay window over primary viewing area (Fig. 1), however fails to explicitly disclose enabling the terminal device to simultaneously playing a part of all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
Obara teaches the technique of enabling the terminal device to simultaneously playing a part of all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface (Col. 12 lines 5-29, Fig. 1, i.e., displaying a live video and a catch-up video in a PIP catch-up window. Display screen 100 displays a live video, such as a sporting event. When playback of a catch-up video is initiated, processes for which are described below, a PIP catch-up window 102 may be displayed in an overlay on top of the live video).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of enabling the terminal device to simultaneously playing a part of all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface as taught by Obara, to improve the video navigation system of Silverman for the predictable result of saving time by multitasking by watching multiple videos at once.
Regarding claim 7, Silverman discloses “wherein before receiving the same plot clip request, the method further comprises: receiving, from the terminal device, a watching request of the first video; and sending, in response to the watching request and to the terminal device, the first video.” ([0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0028], [0031], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., presentation of video content from a video content server).
Regarding claim 8, Silverman discloses “wherein before receiving the same plot clip request, the method further comprises: obtaining video clips that have the same plot and are from a plurality of videos; and separately recording a start location and an end location of each of the video clips, wherein the first video is any one of the videos, and wherein the video clips comprise the first video clip and the second video clip.” ([0020]-[0021], [0027]-[0028], [0030], Fig. 1, i.e., navigation pane 14 has a selection of related scenes 16a-d that are related to the current scene being played in the primary viewing area 12. The related scenes may feature similar characters, relate to the same subplot, feature a similar catchphrase, or any other relation, as indicated by the metadata tags on the clips. The related scenes 16 are selectable by the user, and may lead the user to a particular scene, or, alternatively, may lead the user to a list of related scenes).
Regarding claim 9, Silverman “wherein obtaining the video clips comprises: obtaining a plurality of target type clips from the videos; and obtaining the video clips from the target type clips.” ([0027]-[0028], Fig. 1, i.e., if a Star Wars film was playing on primary viewing area 12, and the current scene was Luke Skywalker on Tatooine, navigation key 17a might read "Luke Skywalker," and navigation key 17c might read "Tatooine," allowing the viewer to easily pull up a list of scenes involving Luke Skywalker or a list of scenes taking place on Tatooine).
Regarding claim 13, Silverman discloses “An electronic device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device ([0048]-[0049], Figs. 1, 5) to:
present to a user when a first video clip in a first video is playing, a first query whether the user wants to watch a second video clip having a same plot as the first video clip ([0005], [0027]-[0028], [0030], Fig. 1, i.e., a user may be alerted to the availability of related content via an indicator 20. The user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content. The navigation pane 14 has a selection of related scenes 16a-d that are related to the current scene being played in the primary viewing area 12. The related scenes may feature similar characters, relate to the same subplot, feature a similar catchphrase, or any other relation, as indicated by the metadata tags on the clips);
obtain a confirmation operation of the user in response to the first query ([0030], Fig. 1, i.e., the user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content);
send, to a video cloud platform in response to the confirmation operation, a same plot clip request of request indicating the first video clip ([0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0028], [0031], Fig. 1, i.e., using metadata tags to search related video content on a video content server);
receive, from the video cloud platform in response to the same plot clip request, the second video clip; and… play a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.” ([0027]-[0028], Fig. 1, i.e., the related scenes 16 are selectable by the user, and may lead the user to a particular scene, or, alternatively, may lead the user to a list of related scenes. For example, the first related scene 16a may relate to the current scene's subplot. Selection of the related scene may cause the current scene in the primary viewing area 12 to pause, and then a small overlay window 18 may play the related scene).
Silverman discloses playing a related scene in a small overlay window over primary viewing area (Fig. 1), however fails to explicitly disclose simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface.
Obara teaches the technique of simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface (Col. 12 lines 5-29, Fig. 1, i.e., displaying a live video and a catch-up video in a PIP catch-up window. Display screen 100 displays a live video, such as a sporting event. When playback of a catch-up video is initiated, processes for which are described below, a PIP catch-up window 102 may be displayed in an overlay on top of the live video).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of simultaneously playing a part or all of the second video clip and the first video clip on a same interface as taught by Obara, to improve the video navigation system of Silverman for the predictable result of saving time by multitasking by watching multiple videos at once.
Regarding claim 17, Silverman discloses “wherein before presenting the first query, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to: send, to the video cloud platform, a watching request of the first video; receive, in response to the watching request and from the video cloud platform, the first video, a start location of the first video clip, and an end location of the first video clip; and play the first video.” ([0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0028], [0031], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., presentation of video content from a video content server, wherein video clips are displayed in the navigation panel).
Regarding claim 19, Silverman discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to: present, to the user when a start location of the first video clip is played, a second query as to whether the user wants to watch the second video clip at the same time in a form of a dialog box; and continue, in response to the second query, to play the first video when a tapping operation of the user is not detected within a display time of the dialog box.” ([0030], [0051], Fig. 1, i.e., the computing device is a tablet device with a touchscreen. A user may be alerted to the availability of related content via an indicator 20. The user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content, otherwise video content continues to play).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman in view of Obara and in further view of Retureau et al. (US Pub. 2017/0026689), herein referenced as Retureau.
Regarding claim 20, Silverman discloses “wherein the one or more processors are at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to: make, to the user when a start location of the first video clip is played, a second query whether the user wants to watch the second video clip at the same time in a form of a…prompt; receive, from the user, in response to the second query, a … signal; and determine, based on the … signal, to play the first video.” ([0005], [0027]-[0028], [0030], Fig. 1, i.e., a user may be alerted to the availability of related content via an indicator 20. The user can then select the indicator 20 if they want to reveal the navigation pane 14 so that they can navigate related content. The navigation pane 14 has a selection of related scenes 16a-d that are related to the current scene being played in the primary viewing area 12. The related scenes may feature similar characters, relate to the same subplot, feature a similar catchphrase, or any other relation, as indicated by the metadata tags on the clips).
The combination fails to explicitly disclose a voice signal.
Retureau teaches that it was known in the art to provide a voice signal ([0032], i.e., a selection may be made to display a set of episodes related to the video being watched. The selection to view both the actively playing video and the related episodes may be made by selecting a soft button, an external button on the mobile device 130, a swipe action, or by voice command). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing a voice signal as taught by Retureau, to improve the video navigation system of Silverman for the predictable result of providing user the convenience of navigating video content using voice commands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 14-16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and (2) filing a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights