DETAILED ACTION
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 17 have been previously cancelled
Claims 3-6,8-10,13-16 and 18-21 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 6 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 10 and 11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner no longer relies on Richman as prior art for the rejection. The applicant states that the remaining references fail to remedy the defects present in the disclosure of Richman (see applicant’s remarks; page 12). However, the applicant does not clearly point out how the language of the claim 6 patentably distinguishes it from the remaining references and does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks claim 6 presents in view of the state of the art disclosed by the remaining references. Further, the arguments do not show how the amendments avoid such references.
As such, the examiner has relied on the remaining references, e.g. Casey and DeWeese, to disclose the limitations of claim 6, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant argues the same reasons as that of claim 6 for the other independent claims 16 and 20, as well as, the dependent claims (see applicant’s remarks; page 12). As such, the arguments are also moot for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 10, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “at least one of”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 20, Casey discloses an electronic device (see Casey; 0029; Casey discloses a set top box) comprising:
a communication interface (see Casey; paragraphs 0029 and 0031; Casey discloses the set top box supports communication, i.e. “communication interface”, through an IP network or directly, with a server);
a memory storing one or more instructions (see Casey; paragraphs 0063 and 0067; Casey discloses the set top box functions as a computer system which includes a working memory having executable instructions); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (see Casey; paragraph 0067; Casey discloses the instructions executable by a processor) to:
recognize a program associated with content requested by a user to be displayed, and obtain a program identity (ID) of the recognized program (see Casey; paragraph 0046, Casey discloses a request from the set top including a program name, i.e. “obtain a program identity”, related to a video program being viewed by a user, i.e. “content requested by a user to be displayed”);
inquire, through the communication interface, of a server as to whether there is chat room information about a chat room corresponding to the program identity (ID) of the program (see Casey; paragraphs 0031, 0045 and 0046; Casey discloses communication between, i.e. “communication interface”, the set top box and a server, e.g. group chat server. The set top box might first query the group chat server, i.e. “inquire, through the communication interface, of a server”, for a list of published group chat sessions, i.e. “chat room information…”, to determine whether there already is an existing group chat session for the program name related to the video program, i.e. “…about a chat room corresponding to the program identity (ID) of the program”, being viewed).
While Casey discloses “inquire…of a server as to whether there is chat room information…”, as discussed above, Casey does not explicitly disclose when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display a user interface to allow control as to whether to execute the chat room corresponding to the program ID of the program while displaying the content, and when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface.
In analogous art, DeWeese discloses when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display a user interface to allow control as to whether to execute the chat room corresponding to the program ID of the program while displaying the content (see DeWeese; paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0112 and Figure 13; DeWeese discloses providing information on chat groups that are available for particular television programs or channels. For example, data relating to available program-specific chat groups may be provided. A user interface screen that provides a user an opportunity to join or not join a chat group by selecting an option can be displayed automatically, i.e. “display a user interface to allow control as to whether to execute the chat room”, by the set-top box whenever a chat group related to the television program that the user is viewing, i.e. “while displaying the content”, is available or becomes available, i.e. “when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID”), and
when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface (see DeWeese; paragraphs 0053, 0054 and 0112; DeWeese discloses providing information on program-specific chat groups. The user interface screen is displayed automatically whenever a chat group related to the television program is available or becomes available, i.e. when there is chat room information. Therefore, the user interface screen is displayed when a chat group is available or becomes available, i.e. “chat room information”, and would not be displayed when the chat group is not available, i.e. “when there is no chat room information…”, and as such, only the television program is displayed, i.e. “display the content without the user interface”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey and DeWeese because they both disclose features of a chat system on a set-top-box, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of automatically displaying a chat control user interface as taught by DeWeese into the system of Casey in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by determining if there is an existing group chat session for the video program (see Casey; paragraph 0045) and when it is available or becomes available, automatically providing the user an opportunity to join or not join (see DeWeese; paragraph 0112) based on certain information, such as, number of current participants (see DeWeese; paragraph 0123).
Further, Casey discloses the additional limitations of claim 20, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program executable by a computer, the program including one or more instructions to perform an operation (see Casey; paragraphs 0019 and 0071; Casey discloses a computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of executable instructions. The computer readable medium is tangible storage medium).
Regarding claim 10, Casey and DeWeese discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Casey and DeWeese clearly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions so that the program associated with the content is recognized by using at least one of automatic content recognition (ACR), context awareness, or program recognition using information included in metadata (see Casey; paragraphs 0038 and 0046; Casey discloses recognition of a video program by program name, program date and program time, i.e. “information included in metadata”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “program recognition using information included in metadata” alternative).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (U.S. 6,754,904 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Casey and DeWeese disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Casey and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform, by referring to an endpoint included in a join response based on a user input to join the chat room, a communication connection to a chat room server that provides a chat room service in association with the chat room.
In analogous art, Cooper discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform, by referring to an endpoint included in a join response based on a user input to join the chat room, a communication connection to a chat room server that provides a chat room service in association with the chat room (see Cooper; column 6 lines 45-57; Cooper discloses a user selects a TV chat button, i.e. “…based on a user input to join the chat room”, and the server places the user in the chat room associated with that TV show. In other words, “a communication connection” would be provided “referring to an endpoint” in order for the server to place the user in the chat room).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey, DeWeese and Cooper because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of joining a TV chat as taught by Cooper into the combined system of Casey and DeWeese in order to provide the benefit of automatically assigning users to a chat room (see Cooper; column 6 lines 40-42).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Bruck et al. (U.S. 7,143,428 B1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Casey and DeWeese disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Casey and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: transmit, to the server, a request to create the chat room corresponding to the program ID when no information about the chat room is obtained from the server in response to the request, and obtain, in response to the request, information about the chat room created from the server.
In analogous art, Brock discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: transmit, to the server, a request to create the chat room corresponding to the program ID when no information about the chat room is obtained from the server in response to the request (see Brock; column 9 lines 7-12 and column 10 lines 13-18; Brock discloses a presence of a chat room for a particular show is optional and a chat link may not be provided. In particular, the chat room may, in fact, be created upon request of a chat client to chat about a particular show. If there is no interest in chatting about a particular show, the server will not create a chat room for that show. In other words, when no interest has been shown yet for a particular show, “no information about the chat room is obtained from the server” and a client may request a chat room be created for the show), and
obtain, in response to the request, information about the chat room created from the server (see Brock; column 10 lines 4-6 and 11-14; Brock discloses the server response includes instructions to the set-top box identifying the chat server. The chat room is created upon request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey, DeWeese and Brock because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of creating a chat room as taught by Brock into the combined system of Casey and DeWeese in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by shows having chat rooms based on user interest and reducing the number of chat rooms that must be service by the chat server (see Brock; column 9 lines 16-18 and column 10 lines 14-16).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Stinson, III et al. (U.S. 2012/0174157 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Casey and DeWeese disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Casey and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is among one or more chat rooms and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: control display of a chat room list including the one or more chat rooms, according to a user input select a chat room from the chat room list being displayed to create a selected chat room, control entry to the selected chat room and change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room, and control display of the selected chat room while content provided on the content channel corresponding to the selected chat room is being displayed.
In analogous art, Stinson discloses wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is among one or more chat rooms and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: control display of a chat room list including the one or more chat rooms (see Stinson; paragraph 0091; Stinson discloses a chat room user interface that displays a listing of chat rooms including a currently active room),
according to a user input select a chat room from the chat room list being displayed to create a selected chat room, control entry to the selected chat room and change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room (see Stinson; paragraphs 0100-0102; Stinson discloses a user selecting to change from one chat room to another chat room, i.e. “the selected chat room”. When the chat rooms are switched, automatic tuning of the TV to the instance of media content, i.e. “content channel”, associated with the chat is done, i.e. “change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room”), and
control display of the selected chat room while content provided on the content channel corresponding to the selected chat room is being displayed (see Stinson; paragraph 0106 and Figure 13; Stinson discloses displaying both the media content and the chat room).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey, DeWeese and Stinson because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of switching chat rooms as taught by Stinson into the combined system of Casey and DeWeese in order to provide the user with media that matches the context of the current chat room, thereby providing real-time interaction around a shared experience (see Stinson; paragraphs 0023 and 0102).
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Flynn-Ripley et al. (U.S. 2010/0037277 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Casey and DeWeese disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further while Casey discloses “inquire, through the communication interface, of a server as to whether there is chat room information about a chat room corresponding to the program identity (ID) of the program”, as discussed above, the combination of Casey and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: provide an icon that enables sharing of the chat room with another user, receive, from the server, chat room sharing information according to a user input selecting the icon, and transmit the received chat room sharing information to an electronic device of the another user.
In analogous art, Flynn-Ripley discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: provide an icon that enables sharing of the chat room with another user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0045, 0049, 0065 and 0067; Flynn-Ripley discloses the STB allowing a user to select invitees to join a chat session, i.e. “sharing of the chat room”, associated with a particular TV program, by using a hot key. For example, when a user turns to a TV channel, a MediaFriends icon appears and the user is able to use the hot key to invite friends),
receive, from the server, chat room sharing information according to a user input selecting the icon (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraph 0045; Flynn-Ripley discloses a server then coordinates sending invitations, i.e. “chat room sharing information”, to the selected invitees to join a chat session associated with a particular program), and
transmit the chat room sharing information to an electronic device of the another user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0045, 0067 and 0069; Flynn-Ripley discloses an invitation, i.e. “chat room sharing information”, to all the members in the selected group is sent. For example, the TVchat invitations are sent to mobile phones or television sets).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey, DeWeese and Flynn-Ripley because they all disclose features of a chat system on a set-top-box, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of chat invitations as taught by Flynn-Ripley into the combined system of Casey and DeWeese in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing other users that may not be subscribers to the system or in a user’s address book the ability to register and join a live chat session (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraph 0045), thereby not limiting who can participate in the chat.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Casey, DeWeese and Flynn-Ripley disclose all the limitations of claims 8 and 18, as discussed above, and further the combination of Casey, DeWeese and Flynn-Ripley clearly discloses wherein the chat room sharing information comprises a generated URL (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0067 and 0079; Flynn-Ripley discloses chat and social networking sessions with communications across TVs, PCs and mobile phones. Invitations to the chat are sent, in which the invitations are pages. As such, since invitation pages are sent using the networking communication, then a “URL” would be generated in order to provide the page), and
the generated URL is transmitted to the electronic device of the another user via a mobile device of the user and a mobile device of the another user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0046, 0067 and 0079; Flynn-Ripley discloses the invitation page, i.e. “URL”, is sent to subscribers, i.e. “another user”, across mobile phones).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 8 and 18.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Casey and DeWeese disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and while Casey discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: inquire of the server as to whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID (see Casey; paragraphs 0031, 0045 and 0046; Casey discloses communication between the set top box and a server, e.g. group chat server. The set top box might first query the group chat server, i.e. “inquire of a server…”, for a list of published group chat sessions, i.e. “chat room information…”, to determine whether there already is an existing group chat session for the program name related to the video program, i.e. “…whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID”, being viewed), the combination of Casey and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the user interface while displaying the content, and when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface.
In analogous art, Zenith discloses when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the user interface while displaying the content (see Zenith; column 5 lines 31-35, 53-54, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 2, column 7 lines 9-18 and Figure 4; Zenith discloses the chat room, i.e. “chat room information”, corresponds to a particular television show, i.e. “the program ID”, and is displayed on a user interface in a lower corner of the display screen with the television show, i.e. “display the user interface while displaying the content”. Further, a user may switch channels, and when the user switches channels a request is initiated for the chat room of the new channel, e.g. new particular television show), and
when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface (see Zenith; column 5 lines 63-66; Zenith discloses the display screen would show only the television show, i.e. “display the content without the user interface” in the absence of a chat, i.e. “when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID”. In other words, if there is no chat room corresponding to the particular television show then only the television show would be displayed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Casey, DeWeese and Zenith because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of detecting when a user switches tv channels as taught by Zenith into the combined system of Casey and DeWeese in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the user to join an existing group chat session (see Casey; paragraph 0045) for a particular channel whenever the user decides to switch from an original channel (see Zenith; column 7 lines 9-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marusi et al. (U.S. 2015/0172370 A1) discloses users being able to chat during a TV show.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 04/16/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights