DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on February 10th, 2026.
Claims 1~3, 6~9, 11~14, 16~18 and 21 are examined.
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 filed 02/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner respectfully point out that Yoakum still teaches the portion that now recites, “while the sub-session is maintained, sub-session maintenance data indicating that the sub-session is being maintained is displayed on the non-participating user terminal.” Yoakum in particular taught the participants KS, PM, and SB, represented by live video feed icons 1620a, 1620b, and 1620c, respectively, may be enabled to engage in private communications (e.g. possibly video or data communications that are not visible to participants outside of the private interaction area) with each other [¶176]. All participants in the multiparty interaction may be able to see the private meeting area 1612 on their respective communication devices 104 [¶99], a clear indication that a private meeting (or “sub-session) is being maintained. While the private meeting area 1612 may be displayed on the graphical user interface 240 of the communication devices 104 of all of the participants in the multiparty interaction, however, the audio and the video of participants in the private meeting area may be muted with respect to participants in the audience area 1604 [¶124]. So, the participants in audience area 1604 (which are “non-participants” of the private meeting area continue to communicate with those in the presentation area 1608 and texting broadcast to all participants located in the same interaction area).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1~3, 6~9, 11~14, and 16~18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. hereinafter Engel (U.S 2021/0266351) in view of Temple et al. hereinafter Temple (U.S 2023/0209103) and further in view of Yoakum (U.S 2017/0353694).
Regarding Claim 1,
Engel taught a video mediation method performed on a server, the medhod comprising:
between a host terminal and a plurality of user terminals, establishing a main session for mediating a main video including a video transmitted from the host terminal to the plurality of user terminals [¶77, Fig. 4, interface 400 for facilitating a video session between a host and users A-G];
mediating the main video through the main session [¶77~¶81, Fig. 4, interface 400 shows a session between user A and host while users B-G are in queue];
establishing a sub-session for mediating a sub-video including a video transmitted from the host terminal to the user terminal set between the host terminal and the user terminal set while maintaining the main session [¶77, Fig. 4, the interface 400 may include segments with the video streams of multiple users (e.g., User B 406, User C 408, User D 410, User E 412, User F 414, User G 416) arranged along the bottom of the interface]; and
mediating the sub-video through the sub-session while maintaining the main session [¶67, group of users (e.g., User B and User C) can view the communication occurring between User A and Host A on the interface 300a. Further, non-participating users (e.g., User B and User C) may view the video between User A and Host A but may be unable to provide video or audio until the host allows such communication; ¶76~¶81, Fig. 4].
Engel did not specifically teach transmitting a request to participate in a sub-session to a user terminal; receiving acceptance of the request to participate in the sub-session from the user terminal, and based at least in part on the acceptance, establishing a sub-session, for mediating data including a sub-video including video transmitted from the host terminal to the user terminal, between the host terminal and the user terminal while maintaining the main session.
Temple taught transmitting a request to participate in a sub-session to a user terminal [¶14, request may be obtained from one or more of the client devices associated with the participants/attendees of the live, interactive, livestream session representing a desire to directly engage with the host of the live, interactive, livestream session; ¶26];
receiving acceptance of the request to participate in the sub-session from the user terminal [¶81, an indication selecting the participant for direct engagement and/or interaction may be obtained];
based at least in part on the acceptance, establishing a sub-session, for mediating data including a sub-video including video transmitted from the host terminal to the user terminal, between the host terminal and the user terminal while maintaining the main session [¶67, group of users (e.g., User B and User C) can view the communication occurring between User A and Host A on the interface 300a. Further, non-participating users (e.g., User B and User C) may view the video between User A and Host A but may be unable to provide video or audio until the host allows such communication; ¶76~¶81, Fig. 4, the interface 400 may include segments with the video streams of multiple users (e.g., User B 406, User C 408, User D 410, User E 412, User F 414, User G 416) arranged along the bottom of the interface].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Temple’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Engel, because the combination would solve the issue of creators of content having difficulty connecting with consumers of their content in intimate settings, as well as monetizing their content [Temple: ¶2].
The combination of Engel and Temple did not specifically teach controlling a non-participating user terminal from the plurality of user terminals to not display at least a portion of the data and, so that, while the sub-session is maintained, sub-session maintenance data indicating that the sub-session is being maintained is displayed on the non-participating user terminal wherein the sub-session maintenance data is an expanded chatting area on a screen where the main video is transmitted.
Yoakum taught controlling a non-participating user terminal from the plurality of user terminals to not display at least a portion of the data [¶100, Fig. 16, video and/or data communications, but not audio communications, may be shared with (e.g. received by and/or visible to) participants outside of the private meeting ("sub-video") area 1612; ¶176, participants KS, PM, and SB, represented by live video feed icons 1620a, 1620b, and 1620c, respectively, may be enabled to engage in private communications (e.g. possibly video or data communications that are not visible to participants outside of the private interaction area) with each other] and,
so that, while the sub-session is maintained, sub-session maintenance data indicating that the sub-session is being maintained is displayed on the non-participating user terminal [¶99, all participants in the multiparty interaction may be able to see the private meeting area 1612 on their respective communication devices 104; ¶124, the private meeting area 1612 may be displayed on the graphical user interface 240 of the communication devices 104 of all of the participants in the multiparty interaction, allowing all participants to see the private meeting area. However, the audio and the video of participants in the private meeting area may be muted with respect to participants in the audience area 1604],
wherein the sub-session maintenance data is an expanded chatting area on a screen where the main video is transmitted [¶165, a given set of interaction capabilities may include or exclude the capability to send a texting broadcast to all participants located in the same interaction area (i.e. area 1604 of Fig. 16) as the sending participant; ¶97].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Yoakum’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Engel and Temple, because the combination would provide for the proper establishment of all media flows in the new interaction workspace [Yoakum: ¶61].
Regarding Claim 2,
Engel-Temple taught wherein the mediating the sub-video includes prioritizing data transmitted and received through the sub-session while maintaining both output of data transmitted and received through the main session and output of data transmitted and received through the sub-session [¶58, client devices of participants/attendees not engaging in a direct interaction with the host may simply present livestream feeds of the host and the selected participant/attendee (e.g., so they can follow along with the direct interaction); ¶59]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 3,
Engel-Temple-Yoakum taught wherein the mediating the sub-video includes controlling the host terminal to display at least a portion of data transmitted and received through the main session on a display area of the host terminal participating in the sub-session [Yoakum: ¶100, video and/or data communications, but not audio communications, may be shared with (e.g. received by and/or visible to) participants outside of the private meeting area 1612]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 6,
Engel-Temple taught wherein the video mediation method further comprises: receiving, from the host terminal, an input for selecting a user profile displayed on a display area of the host terminal [Temple: ¶25, each participant/attendee may be represented by a static object, such as a profile image, or other visual representation];
identifying whether a user account corresponding to the selected user profile is in a state capable of participating in the sub-session [Engel: ¶102, readiness to initiate]; and
when the user account is capable of participating in the sub-session, the transmitting is performed to a user terminal corresponding to the user account [Engel: ¶61, user information such as profiles; ¶92, users that are registered with the video session or have an account linked to the video session]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 7,
Engel taught wherein the video mediation method further comprises receiving, from the host terminal, an input for selecting a user account included in a list of users who applied for sub-video mediation, and the transmitting is performed to a user terminal corresponding to the selected user account [¶38, Fig. 3A, ‘316a’, when the host is ready to conduct the interactive session, the host can ask each participant whether she is ready by selecting a digital element featured alongside information about each participant (e.g., name, age, connectivity status). Such action will prompt the generation of a notification that asks the participant whether she is ready to begin the exchange].
Regarding Claim 8,
Engel taught wherein the list of users comprises a user account that sponsored a host account corresponding to the host terminal through the main session, and information on the user account that sponsored the host account is included with the list of users [¶93, payment status].
Regarding Claim 9,
Engel taught wherein the video mediation method further comprises: identifying whether a preset termination condition for the main session is satisfied; terminating the main session when the termination condition is satisfied; and upon termination of the main session, terminating the sub-session [¶81, end video session; ¶121~¶123].
Regarding Claims 11~14 and 16~18, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~3 and 6~9 respectively, and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel, Temple, and Yoakum in view of Ackerman et al. hereinafter Ackerman (U.S 10,505,998).
Regarding Claim 21,
Engel-Temple-Yoakum-Ackerman taught wherein the content is a pre-recorded video or a previously taken picture (C24:38~61, Fig. 4, the conference display is configured to simultaneously enable a wide range of presentation content and networking among meeting participants. The upper left content sector 62a is usually devoted to a video feed, such as a live camera feed from the presenter's location or a pre-recorded video file on the presenter computer station. The upper right content sector 62b is usually devoted to a slide presentation, although other material such as a image file may be displayed; C25:3~11, the networking area 56 displays a number of selectable networking items, such as text chat in networking pane 68b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Ackerman’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Engel, Temple, and Yoakum, because the combination allows each participant to maintain continuity with the overall presentation while also enabling individualized focusing and interaction with particular portions of the meeting materials (C21:55~58).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443