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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 19-21 under have35 U.S.C. 103 been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Hower, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel et al. Pub. No.: US 20170006252.
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, 7-8 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al. Pub. No.: US 20210392408 (Hereinafter “Aher”) in view of Patel et al. Pub. No.: US 20170006252 (Hereinafter “Patel”).
Regarding Claim 1, Aher discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, during playback of a video on a display of a device of a user, a user input at a first timestamp of the video (see paragraphs [0026-0027] and [0043]);
in response to receiving the user input at the first timestamp of the video, determining whether the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment within the video (see paragraphs [0034] and [0043]); and
in response to determining that the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment within the video, identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment of the video as a skip location (see paragraphs [0029], [0034] and [0044]).
Aher fails to disclose:
maintaining data identifying one or more skippable segments within a video;
determining whether the first timestamp is part of one of the one or more skippable segments within the video;
in analogous art, Patel discloses:
maintaining data identifying one or more skippable segments within a video (see paragraphs [0113], [0116], [0131]);
determining whether the first timestamp is part of one of the one or more skippable segments within the video (see paragraphs [0095], [0112]);
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher with the teaching as taught by Patel in order to improve user experience by reducing the need for multiple skip commands, minimizing interruptions, and preventing users from being forced to view unwanted content.
Regarding Claim 2, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, a user interface element controllable by the user to skip playback of the video to the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0059]); and in response to receiving an input to the user interface element, skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 3, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraphs [0011]).
Regarding Claim 4, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, an indicator for the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses wherein the user input is a request to skip a portion of the video (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0050], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 7, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Aher further discloses wherein the data identifying one or more skippable segments within the video comprises, for each skippable segment, a respective start timestamp and a respective end timestamp, and wherein determining whether the first timestamp is part of one of the one or more skippable segments (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0050], [0057]);Patel further teaches for each of the one or more skippable segments, determining whether an amount of time between the first timestamp and the respective end timestamp for the skippable segment meets a threshold amount of time (see fig.6D, paragraphs [0103] and [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher with the teaching as taught by Patel in order to improve user experience by reducing the need for multiple skip commands, minimizing interruptions, and preventing users from being forced to view unwanted content.
Regarding Claim 8, Aher in view of Patel discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Patel further teaches wherein the skippable segment is defined by a start timestamp and an end timestamp, and wherein identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment within the video as a skip location comprises identifying a timestamp that is a threshold amount of time before the end timestamp as the second timestamp (see fig.6D, paragraphs [0103] and [0159]).
Regarding Claim 19, Aher discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers (see fig.11) to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/
March 03, 2026
Prosecution Insights