DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/21/26.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 21 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-24 have been added.
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 and 22-24 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection of claim 6 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 8-11) 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 Casey and DeWeese as prior art for the rejection. Instead, the examiner has introduced Lee and Zenith to disclose the amended limitations, as shown in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 22, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, 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, 16, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2015/0189486 A1) in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1).
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 20, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a communication interface (see Lee; paragraph 0879; Lee discloses a user interface when ACR event occurs on a TV);
a memory storing one or more instructions (see Lee; paragraphs 0538 and 0539; Lee discloses D-RAM); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (see Lee; paragraphs 0538 and 0539; Lee discloses a processor and D-RAM) to:
recognize a program associated with content requested by a user to be displayed by performing automatic content recognition (ACR) on the content being displayed, and obtain a program identity (ID) of the recognized program based on a result of the automatic content recognition, the program ID being a unique identifier for identifying the recognized program (see Lee; paragraphs 0783, 0788, and 0895; Lee discloses determining when there is a chat room for a current TV program, i.e. “recognize a program associated with content…obtain a program identity (ID)”, and using an ACR app. For example, content of a program being watched is recognized, i.e. “recognized program”, via the ACR, in a TV and a TV application may provide a chatting service to viewers who watch the same broadcast. The examiner notes that the use of ACR, as known, identifies what is playing or being watched. As such, a “unique identifier for identifying the recognized program” is obtained by use of ACR).
While Lee discloses “…obtain a program identity (ID) of the recognized program”, as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose 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 by transmitting the program ID to the server, the chat room information being information in which a chat room is mapped to the program ID such that an endpoint for accessing the chat room is matched with the program ID, 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, Zenith 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 by transmitting the program ID to the server, the chat room information being information in which a chat room is mapped to the program ID such that an endpoint for accessing the chat room is matched with the program ID (see Zenith; column 5 lines 29-35 and column 7 lines 9-18; Zenith discloses a television show is identified by a unique identifier, i.e. “program ID”. When switching channels from an original channel, a request, which would include the show, from a device to an IRC server, i.e. “inquire of the sever…by transmitting the program ID to the server”, for a chat room corresponding to the show on the new television channel, i.e. “…whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID”, is initiated),
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 Zenith; column 5 lines 29-35, 53-55, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 2, column 7 lines 9-18 and Figure 4; Zenith discloses selecting a TV chat room by a pointer device, i.e. “allow control as to whether to execute the chat room”. 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 Lee and Zenith because they both 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 Lee in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the user to join an ongoing chat session when there is a chat room for a current TV program (see Lee; paragraph 0788) for show on a particular channel whenever the user decides to switch from an original channel (see Zenith; column 5 lines 31-35 and column 7 lines 9-14).
Further, Lee 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 Lee; paragraphs 0538 and 0539; Lee discloses a processor and D-RAM).
Regarding claim 23, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Lee and Zenith clearly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: based on a user input requesting execution of the chat room corresponding to the program ID, transmit, to the server, a request to join the chat room (see Zenith; column 5 lines 29-35; Zenith discloses selecting a TV chat by the pointing device, i.e. “based on a user input requesting execution of the chat room”, then sending a request from the chat handler to an IRC server, i.e. “transmit, to the server, a request to join the chat room”, using a unique identifier, i.e. “program ID”, for a particular show),
receive, from the server, chat room access information for accessing the chat room, the chat room access information including the endpoint for accessing the chat room (see Zenith; column 5 lines 29-35 and column 7 lines 9-18; Zenith discloses sending a request to join a chat room and receiving, via a downloaded lookup table, the corresponding chat servers, i.e. “chat room access information including the endpoint”, for the various television shows), and
establish a communication connection to a chat room server that provides a chat room service in association with the chat room, by referring to the endpoint included in the chat room access information (see Zenith; column 5 lines 29-42 and column 7 lines 9-18; Zenith discloses displaying the television show simultaneously with chat dialogue via the corresponding chat servers, i.e. “establish a communication connection to a chat room server…”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 6.
Regarding claim 24, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Lee and Zenith clearly discloses wherein the communication connection to the chat room server is a socket connection established by using the endpoint (see Zenith; column 5 lines 29-42 and column 7 lines 9-18; Zenith discloses connection between a chat handler and the corresponding chat server for the particular television show. The examiner notes that the chat handler and chat server communicating are two programs communicating over a network, and therefore, a “socket connection”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 6.
Claims 3, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2015/0189486 A1) in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1), 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, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Lee and Zenith does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform, by referring to the 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 the 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 Lee, Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith in order to provide the benefit of automatically assigning users to a chat room (see Cooper; column 6 lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 22, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. The combination of Lee and Zenith does not explicitly disclose wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is accessible, based on the program ID, by both the electronic device and another electronic device that obtains the same program ID as the program ID, and the chat room enables the electronic device and the other electronic device to access the chat room based on the same program ID regardless of whether they are in different geographic regions, receive content from different broadcast providers, or use different set-top boxes
In analogous art, Cooper discloses wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is accessible, based on the program ID, by both the electronic device and another electronic device that obtains the same program ID as the program ID (see Cooper; column 6 lines 40-57; Cooper discloses users, e.g. multiple users, i.e. a “electronic device and another electronic device”, are able to access a chat room based on an identified show, i.e. “program ID”. The users can select a TV chat button, i.e. “…based on a user input to join the chat room”, and the server places the users in the chat room associated with that TV show, i.e. “…same program ID as the program ID”), and
the chat room enables the electronic device and the other electronic device to access the chat room based on the same program ID regardless of whether they are in different geographic regions (see Cooper; column 5 lines 3-12 and column 6 lines 40-57; Cooper discloses users being in different locations viewing the same TV show. The server for the chat room places the users in the chat room associated with that TV show, i.e. “whether they are in different geographic regions”), receive content from different broadcast providers, or use different set-top boxes (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 “different geographic regions” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith 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 Lee et al. (U.S. 2015/0189486 A1) in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1), 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, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Lee and Zenith 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 chat room information corresponding to the program ID is obtained from the server, 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 chat room information corresponding to the program ID is obtained from the server (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 chat room information corresponding to the program ID 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 Lee, Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith 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 Lee et al. (U.S. 2015/0189486 A1) in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1), 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, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Lee and Zenith 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 Lee, Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith 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 Lee et al. (U.S. 2015/0189486 A1) in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1), 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, Lee and Zenith disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further while Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith 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 Lee, Zenith 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 Lee and Zenith 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, Lee, Zenith and Flynn-Ripley disclose all the limitations of claims 8 and 18, as discussed above, and further the combination of Lee, Zenith 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roman et al. (U.S. 2018/0207522 A1) discloses home devices determining television channels being watched and information indicating the television channels can be provided to a server.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 09/17/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights