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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of information disclosure statement filed 11 June 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017)) are frequently cited for guidance on the use of conjunctive and disjunctive claim language. In SuperGuide, the Federal Circuit found that the meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B.” By contrast, the meaning of “at least one of A or B” would require A or B, but not both.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 - 10), the limitation (lines 7 – 9) identify “at least one of an intention and an emotion of the input manipulation based on at least one of a characteristic, a speed, and a pressure of the input manipulation appears to be expressed using conjunctive claim language. However, a review of the specification (see step 1530 in Figure 2 of application) appears to be disclosed in the disjunctive form. In the office action below relies on the disjunctive interpretation (i.e., identifying intention OR emotion based on a characteristic OR a speed OR a pressure). A similar disjunctive interpretation is understood for the claimed identifying a playback type of the reactive video based on at least one of the intention and the emotion of the input manipulation in lines 10 – 11.
Claim 8 is similarly interpreted in the disjunctive form.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2020-0125527 A (Lee, Chul Woo, 04 November 2020). Note an English translation in a related patent (EP 3, 962, 096), hereafter Woo, is relied upon the rejection of the claims below.
Regarding claim 1,
Woo discloses an electronic device (Woo [0033]) comprising:
a touchscreen configured to display a reactive video (Woo [0034]); and
a processor configured to control a playback operation of the reactive video (Woo [0125]), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive an input manipulation on one screen of the reactive video through the touchscreen (Woo [0034][0113]);
identify at least one of an intention and an emotion of the input manipulation based on at least on of a characteristic, a speed, and a pressure of the input manipulation (Woo [0113]).
Woo does not directly disclose the processor configured to: identify a playback type of the reactive video based on at least one of the intention and emotion of the input manipulation; and play back the reactive video based on the identified playback type.
However, connecting the first playback type to a user manipulation having more than specific force touch intensity or more than a time length, at which a touch manipulation is inputted; and connecting a second playback type to a user operation having the specific force touch intensity or less or the time length or less that the touch manipulation is inputted (Woo [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Woo such that the processor is configured to: identify a playback type of the reactive video based on at least one of the intention and emotion of the input manipulation; and play back the reactive video based on the identified playback type, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate providing the user with multi-reactive video, thereby increasing a user’s interest in an object included in the video (Woo [0022]).
Regarding claim 2:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reactive video is a multi-reactive video (Woo [0011]).
Regarding claim 3:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: identify the characteristic of the input manipulation based on an execution level of the input manipulation (Woo [0034][0115] amount of force applied).
Regarding claim 4:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: record a plurality of input manipulations on the one screen (Woo [0077]); determine a specified level based on a statistical value of the plurality of input manipulations (Woo [0069] specified level of force/length); and identify the characteristic of the input manipulation by comparing the execution level of the input manipulation with the specified level (Woo [0069] manipulation compared to specified force or length).
Regarding claim 5:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: normalize a pixel distance by which the input manipulation is moved, based on a size of the display unit; and identify the speed of the input manipulation based on the normalized value (Woo [0059] dividing the manipulation type based on reference movement length and speed continuously applied to a specific location).
Regarding claim 6:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: identify the pressure of the input manipulation based on a areas of an input region wo which the input manipulation is applied, and wherein the area of the input region is measured based on a width and height information of the input region or radius information of the input region (Woo [0118]).
Regarding claim 7:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 5, further comprising: a pressure sensor (Woo [0034[ touchscreen detects pressure); wherein the processor is configured to: identify a magnitude of the pressure of the input manipulation though the pressure sensor (Woo [0118]).
Regarding claim 8:
Woo (as modified above in claim 1) discloses the electronic device of claim 7, further comprising: a memory including a machine learning model, wherein the processor is configured to: train the machine learning model by using a plurality of input manipulations having at least one of a characteristic, a speed, and a pressure and at least one of the pieces of intention and emotion information of the plurality of input manipulations; and input the input manipulation to the machine learning model to obtain at least one of the intention an the emotion of the input manipulation as an output (Woo [0126] computer can grasp the user’s propensity by inputting the manipulation an output video data of each user to deep learning, for example, the computer can grasp the degree of interest in a specific object, or the like by finding output which object in the multi-reactive video gets many input manipulation by the user, which pattern has been used for the input manipulation, or the like)
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 directed to the method is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 directed to the computer-readable medium is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 9 (and Woo [0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 15 December 2025 Examiner, Art Unit 2621