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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 07/11/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant argues that Rogers uses a central server to send messages to synchronize video play at multiple devices as opposed to the invention which is done at local device. The applicant argues that paragraph 0022 that each client device may make their own connection to a media service and independently accessing and playing the content. Rogers has a service that streams video to multiple devices. The applicant argues that Rogers discloses a logical clock not synchronizing a clock on a local device with pending changes count and not timestamps in paragraph 0123. The applicant argues that the messages are sent via a service.
In response to the arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. Rogers discloses sending and receiving update messages (collaboration messages) and that the messages have time stamps. Rogers discloses comparing the time stamps as most recent sent and received messages are determined and determining the playing state (paused, playing, etc.). See in particular Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171. . It is noted that there are timestamps in Rogers (paragraph 0171) and that the local device synchronizes a clock with the clock of other devices. It is also noted that even if the services is sending message the device is still sending and receiving the messages (through the service).
Regarding Claim 7, the applicant argues that t Roges does not locally identify most recent playing state.
In response to the arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. Rogers discloses that each device, i.e. a first device and second device locally determines the most recent playing state as it performs the state by the most recent action (paragprah 0022-0023). The device reviews their playing state and the most recent playing state.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant argues that Thomas discloses using pings to solicit an echo reply not an update messages for caculating transmission times.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Thomas discloses further comprising: receiving a ping (paragraph 0132); and generating and sending the update message in response to the received ping (paragraph 0132). Thomas is not used to teach a ping and sending message in response to a ping. Rogers teaches update messages.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rogers et al (US 2023/0283831 and hereafter referred to as “Rogers”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogers discloses a computer implemented method for synchronizing a content state on multiple devices independently accessing content, the method comprising:
synchronizing a clock on a local device with a clock on each of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Figure 5, Page 10, paragraph 0128, Page 8-9, paragraph 0114-0115, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, See also Page 2, paragraph0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171);
generating an update message that includes an update message timestamp obtained from the clock and a playing state of content being played on the local device corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121);
sending the update message to other devices of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Figure 5, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
receiving update messages at the local device from the other devices, each of the update messages including an update message timestamp and a playing state of content being played from a respective one of the other devices corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
comparing the time stamps in the sent and received update messages at the local device to identify a most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
identifying, at the local device, the most recent playing state of the content from the most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134); and
updating the local device to play the content from the most recent playing state included in the most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135).
Regarding Claim 14, Rogers discloses a machine-readable storage device having instructions for execution by a processor of a machine to cause the processor to perform operations to perform a method for synchronizing a content state on multiple devices independently accessing content, the operations comprising:
synchronizing a clock on a local device with a clock on each of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Figure 5, Page 10, paragraph 0128, Page 8-9, paragraph 0114-0115, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, See also Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171);
generating an update message that includes an update message timestamp obtained from the clock and a playing state of content being played on the local device corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121);
sending the update message to other devices of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Figure 5, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
receiving update messages at the local device from the other devices, each of the update messages including an update message timestamp and a playing state of content being played from a respective one of the other devices corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
comparing the time stamps in the sent and received update messages at the local device to identify a most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
identifying, at the local device, the most recent playing state of the content from the most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134); and
updating the local device to play the content from the most recent playing state included in the most recent update message (Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135).
Regarding Claim 18, Rogers discloses a device comprising:
a processor (Figure 11, Page 14, paragraph 0187-0189); and
a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations to perform a method for synchronizing a content state on multiple devices independently accessing content (Page 14, paragraph 0189), the operations comprising:
synchronizing a clock on a local device with a clock on each of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Figure 5, Page 10, paragraph 0128, Page 8-9, paragraph 0114-0115, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, See also Page 2, paragraph -0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171,);
generating an update message that includes an update message timestamp obtained from the clock and a playing state of content being played on the local device corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121);
sending the update message to other devices of the multiple devices (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Figure 5, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
receiving update messages at the local device from the other devices, each of the update messages including an update message timestamp and a playing state of content being played from a respective one of the other devices corresponding to the update message timestamp (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
comparing the time stamps in the sent and received update messages at the local device to identify a most recent update message (Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171, Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134);
identifying, at the local device, the most recent playing state of the content from the most recent update message (Page 10, paragraph 0133, 0134); and
updating the local device to play the content from the most recent playing state included in the most recent update message (Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, see also Page 2, paragraph 0022-0023, Page 13, paragraph 0171,).
Regarding Claim 5, 16 and 19, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, 14 and 18 respectively. Rogers discloses each of the multiple devices receives update messages, determines the most recent playing state from the update messages, and updates to play the content from the most recent playing state (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C, Figure 4, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses wherein the multiple devices perform a group synchronized playback through communication and application of the most recent state via update messages (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Rogers discloses wherein the multiple devices each locally identify the most recent playing state (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 7. Rogers discloses further comprising playing the content from the most recent playing state at each device (Page 9, paragraph 0120, Figure 4, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses wherein the state of content included in the update message includes content track information and playback state information (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C, Figure 4, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses wherein the update message comprises an export interface object (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C)
Regarding Claim 12, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Rogers discloses wherein the export interface object identifies a playback command performed on the content (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C).
Regarding Claim 13, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Rogers discloses wherein the export interface object identifies a starting client and starting time of the content (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C, Figure 4, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. Rogers discloses wherein the update message comprises an export interface object that identifies a playback command performed on the content (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C, Figure 4, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 18. Rogers discloses the update message comprises an export interface object that identifies a playback command performed on the content (Page 9, paragraph 0117, 0118, 0121, Page 10, paragraph 0133-0135, Figure 5, Figure 10C, Figure 4, Figure 6).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Kiryanov et al (US 2021/0281906 and hereafter referred to as “Kiryanov”).
Regarding Claim 2, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses wherein the update messages are sent and received (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5) but is silent on periodically. Kiryanov discloses the update messages are sent and received periodically (paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rogers to include the missing limitation as taught by Kiryanov in order maintain sync as closely as possibly for drift issues (paragraph 0042) as disclosed by Kiryanov.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Thomas et al (US 2013/0173742 and hereafter referred to as “Thomas”).
Regarding Claim 2, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses updated messages but not explicitly disclose ping. Thomas discloses further comprising: receiving a ping (paragraph 0132); and generating and sending the update message in response to the received ping (paragraph 0132). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rogers to include the missing limitation as taught by Thomas in order maintain sync due to latencies (paragraph 0042) as disclosed by Thomas.
Claims 4, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Peng et al (US 2025/0047403 and hereafter referred to as “Peng”).
Regarding Claim 4 and 15, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and 14 respectively. Rogers discloses synchronizing a clock comprises: requesting a time from a time service; receiving a time from the time service. Rogers is silent on tracking the day and adding one-half the delay. Peng discloses wherein synchronizing a clock comprises: requesting a time from a time service (paragraph 0097-0099); receiving a time from the time service (paragraph 0097-0099); tracking a delay between requesting the time and receiving the time (paragraph 0097-0099); and adding about one-half the delay to the received time to set the clock (paragraph 0097-0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rogers to include the missing limitation as taught by Peng in order to ensure stability (paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Peng.
Regarding Claim 9, Rogers discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rogers discloses wherein synchronizing a clock comprises: sending multiple requests for a current time from a time service; receiving a time from the time service for each of the multiple requests (paragraph 0097-0099); tracking a delay between requesting the time and receiving the time for each of the multiple requests (paragraph 0097-0099); selecting a shortest delay (paragraph 0086, 0097-0099); and adding about one-half the shortest delay to the received time to set the clock (paragraph 0097-0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rogers to include the missing limitation as taught by Peng in order to ensure stability (paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Peng.
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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
September 19, 2025