DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fairbanks, US 2019/0205020.
1 and 11 and 12. Fairbanks teaches a method for triggering a multimedia component, comprising:
a memory storing instructions and a processor [Fig. 5] to:
in response to a gesture operation for a video playback interface [e.g. touch event, paras. 28, 56, 69], determining a target trigger region, the target trigger region being a contact region on the video playback interface for the gesture operation [object/interactive trigger region is defined, Figs. 2, 9-12, 14, paras. 26-27, 42-44, 47, 77-79], the video playback interface being configured to play a target video currently displayed [media is played, Figs. 3, 14, 15, paras. 37, 38, 65, 78, 79]; and
detecting the target trigger region and triggering a hidden component or a video component based on a detection result [selection event determined to be within object/trigger region; step 110; Figs. 2, 4, 14, 15, paras. 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 53, 61-64, 78, 79], wherein the hidden component is configured to display a corresponding target page in the video playback interface after being triggered [additional information 14 related to object (target page) is shown; step 621; Figs. 3, 6, 14, paras. 41, 52-54, 64-66], and the video component is configured to perform a first application function on the target video after being triggered [e.g. adaptive information, e.g. analytics, user input data) is recorded (application function is performed); step 625, Figs. 6, 14, 15, paras. 72, 73, 78, 79].
2 and 15 and 23. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in response to a gesture operation for a video playback interface, determining a target trigger region comprises:
obtaining a contact coordinate corresponding to the gesture operation, the contact coordinate representing a coordinate of a contact point of the gesture operation on the video playback interface [coordinate of selection event/touch is determined, paras. 28, 56, 57, 62]; and
determining a hidden trigger region within a first distance from the contact coordinate as the target trigger region based on the contact coordinate, wherein the hidden trigger region is a region provided with a hidden component [selection event parameter/position is compared to object parameters/region; hidden interactive component is triggered if selection event is within object region (e.g. distance is zero), paras. 23, 29, 62-64].
3 and 16. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the target trigger region and triggering a hidden component or a video component based on a detection result comprises:
detecting a target object in a target video in real time [object parameters are accessed only when selection event is received, i.e. in real-time, paras. 24, 49, 60];
in response to the target trigger region being located within a recognition contour of the target object in the target video, triggering the hidden component, wherein the target object is obtained by performing image recognition for a current frame of the target video [e.g. edge/image recognition, or object detection is used to trigger response data, paras. 28, 56, 73; also see Figs. 3, 14, paras. 41, 52-54, 64-66]; and
in response to the target trigger region being located outside the recognition contour of the target object in the target video, triggering the video component [if selection event is not interactive (e.g. is outside object region, adaptive information (e.g. video analytics) is transferred, para. 78, step 625, Fig. 6; also see Figs. 14, 15, paras. 72, 73, 78, 79].
4 and 17. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim, wherein the video playback interface comprises a video container and a page container with overlapping settings, wherein the video container is configured to display the target video and set the video component, the page container is configured to display the target page and set the hidden component, and the page container is invisible before the in response to a gesture operation for a video playback interface [video is shown in player window when selection event occurs (and is invisible beforehand), while ad window (showing hidden component) is shown alongside; settings overlap in that ad is related to video content/selected object, Figs. 3, 14, 15, paras. 37, 38, 41, 52-54, 64-66, 78, 79].
5 and 18. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 4, wherein detecting the target trigger region and triggering a hidden component or a video component based on a detection result comprises:
detecting a target trigger region of the page container [selection event determined to be within object/trigger region; step 110; Figs. 2, 4, 14, 15, paras. 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 53, 61-64, 78, 79]; and
in response to a hidden component existing in the target trigger region of the page container, invoking a first invoking function corresponding to the hidden component, and displaying a corresponding target page in the page container based on an invoking result of the first invoking function [additional information 14 related to object is shown; step 621; Figs. 3, 6, 14, paras. 41, 52-54, 64-66].
6 and 19. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: in response to no hidden component existing in the target trigger region of the page container, invoking a second invoking function corresponding to a video component in the video container, and executing the first application function based on an invoking result of the second invoking function [when a selected interactive event is not interactive (i.e. no hidden component exists), the system executes application function of transferring adaptive information/analytics, para. 78, step 625, Fig. 6; also see Figs. 14, 15, paras. 72, 73, 78, 79].
8 and 21. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 4, wherein before in response to a gesture operation for a video playback interface, determining a target trigger region, the method further comprises:
setting the page container to a visible state and displaying, in the page container, an indication identification corresponding to the hidden component, the indication identification being used for indicating a trigger region corresponding to the hidden component [during authoring (before the gesture operation occurs), the authoring tool (page container) indicates the trigger region with an outline, Fig. 2, paras. 41-46].
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 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbanks as cited above in view of Oh, US 2011/0115925.
9 and 22. Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1 wherein triggering a hidden component comprises: after detecting the gesture operation, triggering a hidden component corresponding to the target trigger region, to display, in the video playback interface, a target page corresponding to the hidden component [selection event determined to be within object/trigger region; step 110; Figs. 2, 4, 14, 15, paras. 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 53, 61-64, 78, 79; additional information 14 related to object (target page) is shown; step 621; Figs. 3, 6, 14, paras. 41, 52-54, 64-66].
Fairbanks is silent on a long pressing gesture and indicator. Oh teaches a user interface including a long-pressing gesture operation for a first duration, wherein the gesture operation is a long-pressing gesture operation, and before triggering an action in response to the long-pressing gesture operation, displaying a guidance identification [long touch indicator is displayed before action is triggered, Figs. 3A-C].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, showing the user the remaining time before the action is taken, so the user can release the long-press if they do not want to trigger the action. The indicator also prevents user frustration from releasing the press too early if they want to complete the action.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Other art considered relevant but not relied upon includes Saffari, US 2011/0289535 [e.g. Figs. 8 and 9 and accompanying description].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights