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 .
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. 12,445,686 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application
The Patent
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a message comprising an identifier of a first video comprising a sequence of video clips from a second device, the message generated by the second device responsive to a request to share the first video from a video playback graphical user interface (GUI) that automatically plays back a first plurality of videos in sequence;
receiving input by the first device that selects the identifier of the first video; and
in response to receiving the input:
launching, by the first device, an interface that automatically plays back a second plurality of videos in sequence;
presenting, by the first device, the first video comprising the sequence of video clips corresponding to the identifier, included in the message received from the second device, before presenting the second plurality of videos in the sequence; and
presenting, together with a plurality of messages in a conversation interface, a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video, the preview comprising a video clip that is looped while being presented together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a message comprising an identifier of a first video comprising a sequence of video clips from a second device, the message generated by the second device responsive to a request to share the first video from a video playback graphical user interface (GUI) that automatically plays back a first plurality of videos in sequence;
receiving input by the first device that selects the identifier of the first video; and
in response to receiving the input: launching, by the first device, an additional instance of the video playback GUI that automatically plays back a second plurality of videos in sequence;
presenting, by the first device, the first video comprising the sequence of video clips corresponding to the identifier, included in the message received from the second device, before presenting the second plurality of videos in the sequence;
after receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video and after launching the additional instance of the video playback GUI on the first device from a conversation interface, receiving a request to exit the additional instance of the video playback GUI on the first device while the first video is being presented; and
in response to receiving the request to exit the additional instance of the video playback GUI, returning to the conversation interface comprising a plurality of messages from which the additional instance of the video playback GUI was initially accessed.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting, together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface, a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video, the preview comprising a video clip that is looped while being presented together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of the Patent.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the Patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the Patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the Patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the Patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the Patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the Patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the Patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 (or 12) and 4 of the Patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the Patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of the Patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the Patent.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the Patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the Patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of the Patent.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 (or 19) and 4 of the Patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 20 of the Patent.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of the Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al (US 9733794), in view of Lewis et al (US 2018/0232121), and further in view of O’Rourke et al (US 2021/0105244).
For claim 1, Hughes et al teach a method comprising:
receiving, by a first client device, a message comprising an identifier of a first video from a second client device, the message generated by the second client device responsive to a request to share the first video from a video playback graphical user interface (GUI) that automatically plays back a first plurality of videos in sequence (e.g. column 2, lines 37-55: “In one embodiment, a user…selects a video, and issues a command to share the video. In response to receiving the sharing command, a video hosting website… or media player invokes a user interface for sharing the video…The link or embed code may be posted to social networking websites, to blogs, to email messages…when a user clicks on the link…the user will be presented with the selected video from the specified start time.” Also see figures 1,4A, 4B);
receiving input by the first client device that selects the identifier of the first video (e.g. figure 4B, user click on lined 410 or embed code 435); and
in response to receiving the input:
presenting, by the first client device, the first video corresponding to the identifier before presenting the second plurality of videos in the sequence (e.g. column 2, lines 37-55: “…when a user clicks on the link…the user will be presented with the selected video from the specified start time.”) identifier included in the message received from the second device (e.g. figure 4B “http://www.yourvideo.com/embed/flowers”).
Hughes et al do not further disclose launching, by the first device, an interface that automatically plays back a second plurality of videos in sequence; presenting, together with a plurality of messages in a conversation interface, a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video, the preview comprising a video clip that is looped while being presented together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface.
Lewis et al teach launching, by the first device, an interface that automatically plays back a second plurality of videos in sequence; (e.g. paragraph 12: “…Conventionally, a media item platform may present a media item to a viewing user in response to a request from another user to share the media item… Other conventional approaches may automatically play related content after a certain media item (e.g., a video) is done playing.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lewis et al into the teaching of Hughes et al to automatically play related content after shared media content is done play (e.g. paragraph 12, Lewis et al) to improve convenience for users and advertiser.
Hughes et al and Lewis et al do not further disclose presenting, together with a plurality of messages in a conversation interface, a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video, the preview comprising a video clip that is looped while being presented together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface.
O’Rourke et al teach presenting, together with a plurality of messages in a conversation interface, a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video, the preview comprising a video clip that is looped while being presented together with the plurality of messages in the conversation interface (e.g. figure 3A, paragraph 191: The capture content preview 302 may correspond to an image or a loop of video that was captured responsive to selection of the contact capture control… the playback controls 306 may indicate that the content is to be viewed once, to be replayed multiple times, or to be kept in chat (e.g., stored in a message session between the user and the receiving contact). ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of O’Rourke et al into the teaching of Hughes et al and Lewis et al to play video in a loop to improve convenience for user.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above, wherein figure 7 shows processor 702, memory 704.
For claim 2, Hughes et al teach the message is presented by the first client device in a conversation interface comprising a plurality of messages exchanged between the first and second devices (e.g. column 2, lines 37-55: “The link or embed code may be posted to social networking websites, to blogs, to email messages…when a user clicks on the link…the user will be presented with the selected video from the specified start time.” Also see figures 1,4A, 4B); the additional instance of the video playback GI being launched on the first device from the conversation interface in response to receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video (if your clicks on http://www.yourvideo.com/embed/flowers, the video should play on yourvideo.com).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 2 above.
For claim 4 and 16, Hughes et al do not further specify automatically playing back a second video of the second plurality of videos after or during playback of the first video. Lewis et al teach automatically playing back a second video of the second plurality of videos after or during playback of the first video. (e.g. paragraph 12: “…Conventionally, a media item platform may present a media item to a viewing user in response to a request from another user to share the media item… Other conventional approaches may automatically play related content after a certain media item (e.g., a video) is done playing.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lewis et al into the teaching of Hughes et al to automatically play related content after shared media content is done play (e.g. paragraph 12, Lewis et al) to improve convenience for users and advertiser.
For claims 5 and 17, Hughes et al do not further disclose the second video is played back in response to receiving a swipe gesture while the first video is played back. Lewis et al teach the second video is played back in response to receiving a swipe gesture while the first video is played back (e.g. paragraph 20: “A user can navigate (e.g., via a gesture, scroll, click, swipe, etc.) to portions of the interface document that are not currently visible in the user interface.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lewis et al into the teaching of Hughes et al to allow user to navigate the user interface via a gesture, scroll, click, swipe, etc. (paragraph 20, Lewis et al) to improve convenience for users.
For claim 9, Hughes et al do not further disclose the second plurality of videos is selected based on one or more attributes of the first video. Lewis et al teach the second plurality of videos is selected based on one or more attributes of the first video (e.g. paragraph 12: “the advertisements are typically related to demographics of the user and not necessarily to the shared media item (e.g., related to the content of the shared media item). Other conventional approaches may automatically play related content after a certain media item (e.g., a video) is done playing. For example, for episodic content, a next episode may be automatically played when the particular video (the earlier episode) is finished playing.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lewis et al into the teaching of Hughes et al to automatically play related content after shared media content is done play (e.g. paragraph 12, Lewis et al) to improve convenience for users and advertiser.
For claim 10, Hughes et al disclose the video playback GUI is a feature of a messaging client and is accessible responsive to selection of an option presented by the messaging client associated with the video playback GUI (e.g. figure 4B: embed code 435: …http://www.yourvideo.com...).
Claims 8, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-18, and further in view of Lockhart (US 2012/0259927).
For claim 15, Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose the first video is presented in full screen. Lockhart teaches he first video is presented in full screen (e.g. paragraph 119: “…the compiled message includes the videos…selection of the Preview icon 1530 shows a preview of the compiled message in full screen”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lockhart into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to allow user to preview the video to improve convenience for user.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 15 above.
For claim 8, Hughes et al teach receiving, by the second client device, selection of a share option displayed while the first video is being displayed, the message being generated by the second client device in response to receiving the selection of the share option (e.g. column 2, lines 37-55: “In one embodiment, a user…selects a video, and issues a command to share the video. In response to receiving the sharing command, a video hosting website… or media player invokes a user interface for sharing the video…The link or embed code may be posted to social networking websites, to blogs, to email messages…when a user clicks on the link…the user will be presented with the selected video from the specified start time.” Also see figures 1,4A, 4B).
Hughes et al do not further disclose presenting, by the second client device, the first video among the first plurality of videos in full screen; and accessing, by the second client device, the video playback GUI that automatically plays back the first plurality of videos in sequence on the second client device.
Lewis et al teach accessing, by the second client device, the video playback GUI that automatically plays back the first plurality of videos in sequence on the second client device (e.g. paragraph 12: “…Conventionally, a media item platform may present a media item to a viewing user in response to a request from another user to share the media item… Other conventional approaches may automatically play related content after a certain media item (e.g., a video) is done playing.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lewis et al into the teaching of Hughes et al to automatically play related content after shared media content is done play (e.g. paragraph 12, Lewis et al) to improve convenience for users and advertiser.
Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose presenting, by the second client device, the first video among the first plurality of videos in full screen. Lockhart teaches presenting, by the second client device, the first video among the first plurality of videos in full screen (e.g. paragraph 119: “…the compiled message includes the videos…selection of the Preview icon 1530 shows a preview of the compiled message in full screen”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lockhart into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to allow user to preview the video to improve convenience for user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al, Lewis et al and Rodriguez, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-18, and further in view of Goyal et al (US 2016/0300265).
For claim 7, Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose the second plurality of videos is selected based on a user profile associated with the first client device. Goyal et al teach the second plurality of videos is selected based on a user profile associated with the first client device (e.g. paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Goyal et al into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to improve convenience for users and advertiser.
Claims 6 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-18, and further in view of Zhu et al (US 9583142).
For claims 6 and 20, Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose playback of the first video loops until the swipe gesture is received to initiate playback of the second video. Zhu et al teach playback of the first video loops until the swipe gesture is received to initiate playback of the second video (e.g. column 13, lines 40-47). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhu et al into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to allow user to search and browse videos (e.g. Zhu et al , column 9, lines 44-46) easily.
Claims 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-18, and further in view of Forster (US 2016/0072737).
For claims 3 and 13, Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose the message is presented among the plurality of messages. Forster teaches the message is presented among the plurality of messages (e.g. figure 11, video is in chat room). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Forster into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to improve convenience for users.
For claim 14, Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al do not further disclose presenting a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video. Forster teaches presenting a preview of the first video on the first device before receiving the input that selects the identifier of the first video (e.g. figures 11-12, paragraph 42: video is in chat room). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Forster into the teaching of Hughes et al, Lewis et al and O’Rourke et al to improve convenience for users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1119. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur: 7:00 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, Thai Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
Email: daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
Phone: (571)270-1119
/DAQUAN ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights