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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/871,030, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As per MPEP 211.05(I)(A), under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. For a claim in a later filed nonprovisional application to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter of the claim in the later filed nonprovisional application. If a claim in the nonprovisional application is not adequately supported by the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application (as in New Railhead), that claim in the nonprovisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. In the instant case, Application No. 63/871,030, fails to provide adequate support for at least the following subject matter claimed in Application 19/350,541:
augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products;
wherein the obtaining information is accomplished by scrubbing text from the website by the third party;
wherein the rendering comprises a first video segment, wherein the first video segment includes a synthetic human;
wherein the user interaction is accomplished by mousing over an object in the video;
wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third-party information source;
updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video and the augmenting updates to remove information on the object that disappears;
updating the callback function when an object appears in view on the video and the augmenting includes information on the object that appears in view;
synchronizing information on the webpage with additional information shown on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes displaying e-commerce shopping cart information on the webpage and video shopping cart information shown on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes removing information on an object when the object disappears from view on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes adding information on a new object in an associated webpage when the new object appears on the video;
performing cart synchronization between an e-commerce shopping cart on the webpage and a cart representation displayed over a portion of the video;
wherein the displaying includes highlighting information on a webpage for an object, based on the user interaction;
wherein the displaying includes displaying information as an overlay on the video;
wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function, as an argument to a second function, from the video user interface to the third-party information source based on the user interaction, and wherein the callback function is updated to augment information based on changes in product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view on the video; and
wherein the augmenting is based on the product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view.
As such, the priority date for the instant application is October 6, 2025.
Likewise, the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/830,393, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As per MPEP 211.05(I)(B), under 35 U.S.C. 120, any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See, e.g., In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972). In the instant case, the specification of Application No. 17/830,393, fails to contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the claimed invention in Application 19/350,541. For example, Application No. 17/830,393 fails to provide adequate support for at least the following subject matter claimed in Application 19/350,541:
“augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information a augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products;
wherein the obtaining information is accomplished by scrubbing text from the website by the third party;
wherein the rendering comprises a first video segment, wherein the first video segment includes a synthetic human;
wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third-party information source;
updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video and the augmenting updates to remove information on the object that disappears;
updating the callback function when an object appears in view on the video and the augmenting includes information on the object that appears in view;
synchronizing information on the webpage with additional information shown on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes displaying e-commerce shopping cart information on the webpage and video shopping cart information shown on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes removing information on an object when the object disappears from view on the video;
wherein the synchronizing includes adding information on a new object in an associated webpage when the new object appears on the video;
performing cart synchronization between an e-commerce shopping cart on the webpage and a cart representation displayed over a portion of the video;
wherein the displaying includes highlighting information on a webpage for an object, based on the user interaction;
wherein the displaying includes displaying information as an overlay on the video;
wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function, as an argument to a second function, from the video user interface to the third-party information source based on the user interaction, and wherein the callback function is updated to augment information based on changes in product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view on the video; and
wherein the augmenting is based on the product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view.
As such, the priority date for the instant application is October 6, 2025.
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 1-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,045. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely use slightly different terms which encompass the scope of the terms used in claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent 12,356,045 or add additional limitation which are obvious variants of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,045.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are directed to a method, a computer program product, and a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 28-29 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source;
rendering, to a user, a video about the one or more products;
interfacing between the user and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video;
fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the user and the third-party information source; and
augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer comprising a memory and one or more processors executing computer software (e.g., code, instructions, and/or a video user interface) which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source (receiving data);
rendering, by a video user interface, to a user, a video about the one or more products (displaying data);
interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video (transmitting and/or receiving data); and
fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source (transmitting a request for and/or receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer comprising a memory and one or more processors executing computer software (e.g., code, instructions, and/or a video user interface) which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 93-97 of the applicant’s specification which disclose that the computer comprising a processor and memory executing instructions may be a general-purpose computer; and the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision which indicates that a generic "interactive interface" that merely provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source (receiving data);
rendering, by a video user interface, to a user, a video about the one or more products (displaying data);
interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video (transmitting and/or receiving data); and
fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source (transmitting a request for and/or receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Dependent claims 2-27 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the obtaining of the information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Clams 2-3); further limiting the fetching and further limiting the rendering which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4-5, and 25); further limiting the third-party information source which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6); further limiting the user interaction which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7-8); further limiting the interfacing which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 9-14 and 26); adding an additional step of rendering a webpage which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 15); adding an additional step of synchronizing information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 16-19); adding an additional step of performing cart synchronization which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 20); adding the additional step of determining a plurality of objects within the video; displaying information on each of the plurality of objects including displaying the information as an overlay, and highlighting information on a webpage for an object which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 21-24); and further limiting the augmenting which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 27), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-29 are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backor et al. (PGPUB: 2023/0032373).
Claims 1-3, 28, and 29: A computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a computer system for display, comprising:
one or more processors and a memory storing instruction which when executed by the one or more processors perform the operations of:
obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source, wherein the obtaining information is based on a website by a third party, wherein the obtaining information is accomplished by scrubbing text from the website by the third party (Claims 1 and 4);
rendering, by a video user interface, to a user, a video about the one or more products;
interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video user interface;
fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source; and
augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the fetching is based on a user selection of the product within the one or more products. (Paragraph 25: the information can be fetched from a server, such as a server associated with the website, based on a user interacting with a video that she or he is watching. The user interaction can include selection of a product by the user
Claim 6: The method of claim 1 wherein the third-party information source comprises an online retailer. (Paragraph 23: the third-party website can include an information source, a search engine, an online retailer, and so on)
Claim 7: The method of claim 1 wherein the user interaction is accomplished by mousing over an object in the video. (Paragraph 30: the user interaction can be accomplished by mousing over an object in the video)
Claim 8: The method of claim 1 wherein the user interaction comprises showing interest in the product. (Paragraph 53: The user may be interested in obtaining further information related to one or more of the products. By interacting with a video user interface, the user can indicate a product of interest and can be presented with information associated with the product of interest)
Claim 9: The method of claim 1 wherein the interfacing comprises a request for the further information on an object based on the user interaction. (Claim 7; Paragraph 30: the interfacing can include a request for product information and for further information on an object based on the user interaction; the interfacing can include a purchase selection for an object))
Claim 10: The method of claim 1 wherein the interfacing comprises a purchase selection for an object. (Claim 8; Paragraph 30: the interfacing can include a request for product information and for further information on an object based on the user interaction; the interfacing can include a purchase selection for an object)
Claim 11: The method of claim 1 wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third-party information source. (Claim 9; Paragraph 30: the interfacing can include passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third party based on the user interaction)
Claim 12: The method of claim 11 wherein the interfacing is based on the user interaction. (Paragraph 30: the interfacing can include passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third party based on the user interaction)
Claim 13: The method of claim 11 further comprising updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video and the augmenting updates to remove information on the object that disappears. (Claim 11; Paragraph 30: the callback function can obtain information, add a product to a shopping cart associated with the third party, and so on. The callback function can be updated based on what objects such as products are visible within the video at a given time; Paragraph 36: the flow includes updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video; the user can no longer interact with an object that has disappeared from view, so information associated with the object, references to the object, and so on, are no longer needed; the callback function can be updated accordingly; in the flow, the augmenting includes updates to remove information on the object that disappears)
Claim 14: The method of claim 11 further comprising updating the callback function when an object appears in view on the video and the augmenting includes information on the object that appears in view. (Claim 12)
Claim 15. The method of claim 1 further comprising rendering a webpage based on the user interaction. (Claim 14)
Claim 16. The method of claim 15 further comprising synchronizing information on the webpage with additional information shown on the video. (Claim 15)
Claim 17: The method of claim 16 wherein the synchronizing includes displaying e-commerce shopping cart information on the webpage and video shopping cart information shown on the video. (Claim 16)
Claim 18: The method of claim 16 wherein the synchronizing includes removing information on an object when the object disappears from view on the video. (Claim 17)
Claim 19: The method of claim 16 wherein the synchronizing includes adding information on a new object in an associated webpage when the new object appears on the video. (Claim 19)
Claim 20: The method of claim 16 further comprising performing cart synchronization between an e-commerce shopping cart on the webpage and a cart representation displayed over a portion of the video. (Claim 18)
Claim 21: The method of claim 1 further comprising determining a plurality of objects within the video. (Claim 20)
Claim 22. The method of claim 21 further comprising displaying information on each of the plurality of objects within the video. (Claim 21)
Claim 23. The method of claim 22 wherein the displaying includes highlighting information on a webpage for an object, based on the user interaction. (Claim 23)
Claim 24. The method of claim 22 wherein the displaying includes displaying information as an overlay on the video. (Claim 22)
Claim 25. The method of claim 1 wherein the rendering and the fetching are accomplished on a same webpage.(Paragraphs 57-58: video stream video and website content obtained for an individual can be rendered within a frame and one or more child frames; the frame and a child frame can be used for video and webpage rendering, where the webpage can include product information. Information on one or more products is obtained from a website by a third party; a video about the one or more products is rendered by a video user interface to a user; the video user interface and the third party are interfaced between each other based on a user interaction with the video user interface; product information is fetched from a server based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third party; the video is augmented with further information based on the fetching; the video, and the webpage information which can include product information, can be rendered within an application or app, a window associated with a web browser, and the like; the rendering of a video stream video can be accomplished using a frame; the frame can occupy a portion of the display; the frame can include a frame within an app, a frame within a browser window, etc.; in embodiments, the rendering the reduced video and webpage content is accomplished without a popup window; the webpage content can be rendered within a child frame; in a usage example, the webpage content can include one or more of a product, a service, a coupon, or a membership. embodiments include launching a child frame into which the webpage is displayed; the child frame can be larger than the parent frame.; in embodiments, the child frame surrounds the video being rendered; a video such as a livestream video, video stream, or short-form video, and contents of a website such as a third-party website, can be rendered on a display associated with a computer; a video stream interface based on third-party webpage information is enabled by the frame and the child frame. Information on one or more products is obtained from a website by a third party; a video about the one or more products is rendered by a video user interface to a user; product information is fetched from a server based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third party. The video is augmented with further information based on the fetching)
Claim 26. The method of claim 1 wherein the interfacing comprises passing a callback function, as an argument to a second function, from the video user interface to the third-party information source based on the user interaction, and wherein the callback function is updated to augment information based on changes in product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view on the video. (Paragraph 36: the flow includes passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third party based on the user interaction; a callback function can include a function that is accessible to a second function; the callback function can be provided as an argument to the second function; the callback function can be executed following completion of the function to which the callback function is provided; the callback function can include a JavaScript™ callback function; the callback function can be updated; the flow includes updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video; the user can no longer interact with an object that has disappeared from view, so information associated with the object, references to the object, and so on, are no longer needed; the callback function can be updated accordingly; in the flow, the augmenting includes updates to remove information on the object that disappears)
Claim 27. The method of claim 26 wherein the augmenting is based on the product visibility as a result of the product from the one or more products disappearing from view. (Paragraph 36: the flow includes passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third party based on the user interaction; a callback function can include a function that is accessible to a second function; the callback function can be provided as an argument to the second function; the callback function can be executed following completion of the function to which the callback function is provided; the callback function can include a JavaScript™ callback function; the callback function can be updated; the flow includes updating the callback function when an object disappears from view on the video; the user can no longer interact with an object that has disappeared from view, so information associated with the object, references to the object, and so on, are no longer needed; the callback function can be updated accordingly; in the flow, the augmenting includes updates to remove information on the object that disappears)
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backor et al. (PGPUB: 2023/0032373) in view of Tseng et al. (PGPUB: 2024/0292069).
Claim 5: The method of claim 1 wherein the rendering comprises a first video segment, wherein the first video segment includes a synthetic human.
Backor discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rendering comprises a first video segment, wherein the first video segment includes animations, computer-generated images, and slick graphics in at least paragraphs 4 and 25.
While animations and computer-generated images are broad enough to encompass a synthetic human, Backor does not specifically state that the animations and computer-generated images include a synthetic human.
However, the analogous art of Tseng discloses that it is known to generate animations and computer-generated images to be synthetic humans incorporated into a video segment in at least the abstract and paragraphs 22-23, 30, and 60-65.
The motivation for doing so is to create effective and engaging content in pre-recorded and real-time collaborative events using synthetic humans of trusted sources like influencers (Tseng – Paragraph 8)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ross et al. (PGPUB: 2022/0156801) which discloses obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source; rendering, by a video user interface, to a user, a video about the one or more products; interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video user interface; fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source; and augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products, wherein displaying information including displaying the information as an overlay on the video; interfacing comprises passing a callback function from the video user interface to the third-party information source; information on the webpage and the additional information shown on the video is synchronized, wherein synchronizing includes synchronizing an e-commerce shopping cart.
Shoff et al. (PGPUB: 2001/0001160) which disclose obtaining information on one or more products from a third-party information source; rendering, by a video user interface, to a user, a video about the one or more products; interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source, wherein the interfacing is based on a user interaction with the video user interface; fetching product information associated with a product within the one or more products, wherein the fetching is based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third-party information source; and augmenting the video with further information based on the fetching of the product information associated with the product within the one or more products, including synchronizing the supplemental content with the video stream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
