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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections noted in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art, have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Loganathan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0249970), referred to as Loganathan herein [cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 11/30/2023].
Petty et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0164408), referred to as Petty herein [cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 11/30/2023].
Pegg (US Patent Number 7,945,622), referred to as Pegg herein [previously cited].
Du et al. (WO 2014/101213), referred to as Du herein.
Hawver (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0329589), referred to as Hawver herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg in view of Petty in further view of Du.
Regarding claim 1, Pegg discloses a method comprising: streaming video data at a client device of multiple client devices participating in a streaming session, the video data representing a plurality of video frames (Pegg, Figs. 1 and 2 with 3:1-42, 4:31-5:8, 7:30-50, 14:11-26 – streaming video from live or recorded session data to client devices. Streaming recorded video includes video frames for playback. 2:53-3:67 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory);
during the streaming, recording state data at the client device, the state data including: real-time
and user interaction information reflecting second
transmitting, in real time, the state data from the client device to a server (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients. 4:31-5:8 - live);
storing, at the client device, a local copy of current joint state data comprising, for each of the multiple client devices, the real-time
receiving, from the server in real time at the client device, an incremental update including updated real-time client device of the multiple client devices (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients. Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 4:31-5:8 - live);
generating, in the graphical user interface of the client device visual representations of input
However, Pegg appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Petty discloses a collaborative interface including shared mouse information and annotation (Petty, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0048-¶0049, ¶0051), including
real-time cursor information indicating coordinates of input cursors (Petty, Figs. 2 and 3 with ¶0050-¶0052 – transmitting the cursor location and movement of each user to the other simultaneously viewing users. ¶0059 – real-time shared editing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronized visual representations of the cursors of multiple respective users based on the teachings of Petty. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively enable multiple users to simultaneously collaborate about the same content (Petty, ¶0003-¶0004).
However, Petty as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the local copy of the current joint state data by replacing one or more previously stored values with updated values indicated by the incremental update. However, in the same field of endeavor Du discloses shared mouse information (Du, Abstract), including
modifying the local copy of the current joint state data by replacing one or more previously stored values with updated values indicated by the incremental update (Du, Translation Abstract with Pages 8-9 – incremental changes in mouse position coordinates result in updated positional values both from client to server and from server to client. During client-to-server transmission, the stored values at the server are updated. During server-to-client transmission, the stored values at the client are updated. See also claim 12 as published).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronizing mouse information by updating stored local mouse state information based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve client-sever mouse synchronization accuracy (Du, Abstract with Page 2), and to save bandwidth by sending incremental updates rather than a full history.
Regarding claim 2, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein generating the other visual representations in the graphical user interface of the client device comprises re-creating, at the client device, a first drawing annotation originating from the at least one other client device of the multiple client devices, the first drawing annotation being re-created based on the updated user interaction information of the at least one other client device as stored in the modified local copy of the current joint state data, and superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the client device (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients. Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. “Generating the other visual representations” is interpreted as a contingent limitation based on the “other visual representations” being listed in the alternative in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical user interface of the client device comprises indicators of timestamps at which respective annotations were applied (Pegg, 7:4-15 – timestamps for collaboration data are used to synchronize the collaboration data with the session. Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings and data modification. 4:31-60, 8:6-28 – scrub bar indicating playback position).
Regarding claim 7, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving a first incremental update from the server providing drawing instructions to re-create a first drawing annotation in a first video frame; and later receiving a second incremental update from the server providing additional drawing instructions to re-create a second drawing annotation in the first video frame (Pegg, 3:22-43 with 8:41-55– relayed and recorded collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 12:1-40 – joining the session and exiting live mode to review the session at a previous timestamp. 5:18-27, 7:4-15 – collaboration data can be added when reviewing a recorded session, the collaboration data is time stamped relative to the ongoing session. 2:9-24 – collaboration data can be received after the collaboration session is over. In this case, the user’s collaboration data is no longer associated with the live time index but another time index).
Regarding claim 8, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses after completion of the streaming session, adding other drawing instructions to the local copy of the current joint state data to recreate a second drawing annotation in addition to the first drawing annotation, the second drawing annotation being based on user interactions with the graphical user interface that occur after the completion of the streaming session (Pegg, 3:22-43 with 8:41-55– relayed and recorded collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 12:1-40 – joining the session and exiting live mode to review the session at a previous timestamp. 5:18-27, 7:4-15 – collaboration data can be added when reviewing a recorded session, the collaboration data is time stamped relative to the ongoing session. 2:9-24 – collaboration data can be received after the collaboration session is over. In this case, the user’s collaboration data is no longer associated with the live time index but another time index).
Regarding claim 10, Pegg discloses a client device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the client device to: stream video data at multiple client devices, including the client device participating in a streaming session, the video data representing a plurality of video frames (Pegg, Figs. 1 and 2 with 3:1-42, 4:31-5:8, 7:30-50, 14:11-26 – streaming video from live or recorded session data to client devices. Streaming recorded video includes video frames for playback. 2:53-3:67 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory);
record state data at the client device during the streaming, the state data including: real-time data includes drawings and chats and is relayed to other participants. 3:43-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of video, mouse gestures, and data modification),
and user interaction information reflecting second
transmit, in real time, the state data from the client device to a server (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients. 4:31-5:8 - live);
store, at the client device, a local copy of current joint state data comprising, for each of the multiple client devices, the real-time
receive, from the server in real time at the client device, an incremental update including updated real-time
modify the local copy of the current joint state data by
generate, in the graphical user interface of the client device, a visual representation of a second input
However, Pegg appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Petty discloses a collaborative interface including shared mouse information and annotation (Petty, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0048-¶0049, ¶0051), including
real-time cursor information indicating coordinates of input cursors (Petty, Figs. 2 and 3 with ¶0050-¶0052 – transmitting the cursor location and movement of each user to the other simultaneously viewing users. ¶0059 – real-time shared editing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronized visual representations of the cursors of multiple respective users based on the teachings of Petty. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively enable multiple users to simultaneously collaborate about the same content (Petty, ¶0003-¶0004).
However, Petty as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the local copy of the current joint state data by replacing one or more previously stored values with updated values indicated by the incremental update. However, in the same field of endeavor Du discloses shared mouse information (Du, Abstract), including
modifying the local copy of the current joint state data by replacing one or more previously stored values with updated values indicated by the incremental update (Du, Translation Abstract with Pages 8-9 – incremental changes in mouse position coordinates result in updated positional values both from client to server and from server to client. During client-to-server transmission, the stored values at the server are updated. During server-to-client transmission, the stored values at the client are updated. See also claim 12 as published).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronizing mouse information by updating stored local mouse state information based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve client-sever mouse synchronization accuracy (Du, Abstract with Page 2), and to save bandwidth by sending incremental updates rather than a full history.
Regarding claim 14, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical user interface of the client device comprises indicators of timestamps at which respective annotations were applied (Pegg, 7:4-15 – timestamps for collaboration data are used to synchronize the collaboration data with the session. Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings and data modification. 4:31-60, 8:6-28 – scrub bar indicating playback position).
Regarding claim 16, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses when executed by the one or more processors, the stored instructions further configure the client device to: receive a first incremental update from the server providing drawing instructions to re- create a first drawing annotation in a first video frame; and later receive a second incremental update from the server providing additional drawing instructions to re-create a second drawing annotation in the first video frame (Pegg, 3:22-43 with 8:41-55– relayed and recorded collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 12:1-40 – joining the session and exiting live mode to review the session at a previous timestamp. 5:18-27, 7:4-15 – collaboration data can be added when reviewing a recorded session, the collaboration data is time stamped relative to the ongoing session. 2:9-24 – collaboration data can be received after the collaboration session is over. In this case, the user’s collaboration data is no longer associated with the live time index but another time index).
Regarding claim 17, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein, when executed by the one or more processors, the stored instructions further configure the client device to: after completion of the streaming session, add other drawing instructions to the current joint state data to recreate a second drawing annotation in addition to a first drawing annotation, the second drawing annotation being based on user interactions with the graphical user interface that occur after the completion of the streaming session (Pegg, 3:22-43 with 8:41-55– relayed and recorded collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 12:1-40 – joining the session and exiting live mode to review the session at a previous timestamp. 5:18-27, 7:4-15 – collaboration data can be added when reviewing a recorded session, the collaboration data is time stamped relative to the ongoing session. 2:9-24 – collaboration data can be received after the collaboration session is over. In this case, the user’s collaboration data is no longer associated with the live time index but another time index).
Regarding claim 19, Pegg discloses a method performed by a server, the method comprising: streaming, from a server, video data to multiple client devices participating in a streaming session, the video data representing a plurality of video frames (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 4:31-5:8, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients. Figs. 1 and 2 with 4:31-5:8, 7:30-50, 14:11-26 – streaming video from live or recorded session data. Streaming recorded video includes video frames for playback. 2:53-3:67 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory);
receiving, at the server, state data from each client device of the multiple client devices (Pegg, Fig. 1 with 3:1-42, 8:41-55, 9:42-54 – collaboration server receives collaboration data from clients and relays the collaboration data to other connected clients),
wherein the state data for each client device includes: real-time
wherein the user interaction information identifies a performed action or a displayed interface control (Pegg, Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 and 7:40-50 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide);
combining the state data on the server to form current joint state data that comprises the real-time (Pegg, Fig. 2 with 3:22-43 and 7:40-50 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide);
wherein the incremental update is usable to
However, Pegg appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Petty discloses a collaborative interface including shared mouse information and annotation (Petty, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0048-¶0049, ¶0051), including
real-time cursor information indicating coordinates of input cursors (Petty, Figs. 2 and 3 with ¶0050-¶0052 – transmitting the cursor location and movement of each user to the other simultaneously viewing users. ¶0059 – real-time shared editing),
which includes real-time cursor data and real-time cursor information (Petty, ¶0051 – cursor data including color coding or usernames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronized visual representations of the cursors of multiple respective users based on the teachings of Petty. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively enable multiple users to simultaneously collaborate about the same content (Petty, ¶0003-¶0004).
However, Petty as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the local copy of the current joint state data by replacing one or more previously stored values with updated values indicated by the incremental update. However, in the same field of endeavor Du discloses shared mouse information (Du, Abstract), including
wherein the incremental update is usable to replace one or more previously stored values in a local copy of the current joint state data on the client device, the replaced values including coordinate data from the updated real-time cursor information or the updated user interaction information for corresponding visual representations associated with the at least one other client device (Du, Translation Abstract with Pages 8-9 – incremental changes in mouse position coordinates result in updated positional values both from client to server and from server to client. During client-to-server transmission, the stored values at the server are updated. During server-to-client transmission, the stored values at the client are updated. See also claim 12 as published).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mouse position information of Pegg as modified to include synchronizing mouse information by updating stored local mouse state information based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve client-sever mouse synchronization accuracy (Du, Abstract with Page 2), and to save bandwidth by sending incremental updates rather than a full history.
Regarding claim 20, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 19 above, and further discloses after completion of the streaming session, adding other drawing instructions to the current joint state data to recreate a second drawing annotation in addition to a first drawing annotation, the second drawing annotation being based on user interactions with the graphical user interface that occur after the completion of the streaming session (Pegg, 3:22-43 with 8:41-55– relayed and recorded collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide. 12:1-40 – joining the session and exiting live mode to review the session at a previous timestamp. 5:18-27, 7:4-15 – collaboration data can be added when reviewing a recorded session, the collaboration data is time stamped relative to the ongoing session. 2:9-24 – collaboration data can be received after the collaboration session is over. In this case, the user’s collaboration data is no longer associated with the live time index but another time index).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg in view of Petty in further view of Du in further view of Hawver.
Regarding claim 3, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein receiving the incremental update comprises receiving the updated real-time cursor information for the at least one other client device (Du, Abstract with Pages 8-9 – incremental changes in mouse position coordinates result in updated positional values both from client to server and from server to client. During client-to-server transmission, the stored values at the server are updated. During server-to-client transmission, the stored values at the client are updated. See also claim 12 as published),
the updated real-time cursor information indicating after a previous move. The difference value for the change in mouse position is used to create the new position).
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hawver discloses a collaborative environment receiving input from multiple client devices (Hawver, Fig. 3B with ¶0024), including
the updated mouse position information indicating a direction and a distance usable to determine a current cursor position based on a previously stored cursor position for the at least one other client device (Hawver, ¶0066-¶0067 – mouse movement is determined by receiving direction and distance information relative to a former position to calculate the current mouse position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have cursor information of Pegg as modified to calculation based on direction and distance based on the teachings of Hawver. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain compatibility with input devices, particularly common computer mouse signals.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg in view of Petty in further view of Du in further view of Loganathan.
Regarding claim 4, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving, with the incremental update, drawing instructions for re-creating annotations resulting from interactions with respective graphical user interfaces of the multiple client devices, and 3:22-43 – relayed collaboration data includes a replication of drawings, video, mouse gestures, data modification, and application actions such as changing a slide).
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the particular client device (Loganathan, ¶0030-¶0031, ¶0040 – video annotation is stored as an overlay based on annotation coordinates. Figs. 4A-4C with ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057, ¶0060-¶0062 – The video annotation is displayed at the times and frames corresponding to the annotation within the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drawing information of Pegg as modified to superimposing annotations based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent modification of the underlying video (Loganathan, ¶0030), preserving the original video for future use.
Regarding claim 6, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical user interface of the client device further comprises a progress bar and the progress bar comprises indicators
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
the progress bar comprises marking timestamps at which respective annotations were applied (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0027, ¶0057 and E214 – the timeline (progress bar) includes annotation indicators corresponding to annotation timestamps within the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the progress bar of Pegg as modified to include indications of annotation timing based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to identify and conveniently jump to key times within the playback (Loganthan, ¶0057).
Regarding claim 9, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses toggling, at the client device, between displaying and not displaying re-created drawing annotations
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the particular client device (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0030-¶0031, ¶0040 – video annotation is stored as an overlay based on annotation coordinates. Figs. 4A-4C with ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057, ¶0060-¶0062 – The video annotation is displayed at the times and frames corresponding to the annotation within the video)
and further discloses toggling, at the client device, between displaying and not displaying re-created drawing annotations superimposed over video frames of the video data, the re-created drawing annotations being generated based on incremental updates to the current joint state data that are received from the server (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0027, ¶0057 and E214 – the timeline (progress bar) includes annotation indicators corresponding to annotation timestamps within the video and enables users to jump to the time indication. ¶0052 – annotations may be removed from the video at timestamps following the annotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drawing information of Pegg as modified to superimposing annotations based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent modification of the underlying video (Loganathan, ¶0030), preserving the original video for future use.
Regarding claim 11, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein, when executed by the one or more processors, the stored instructions further configure the client device to: generate the other visual representation in the graphical user interface of the client device by: re-creating, at the client device, a first drawing annotation originating from the second client device, the first drawing annotation being re-created based on the updated user interaction information of the second client device as stored in the modified local copy of the current joint state data, and
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the particular client device (Loganathan, ¶0030-¶0031, ¶0040 – video annotation is stored as an overlay based on annotation coordinates. Figs. 4A-4C with ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057, ¶0060-¶0062 – The video annotation is displayed at the times and frames corresponding to the annotation within the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drawing information of Pegg as modified to superimposing annotations based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent modification of the underlying video (Loganathan, ¶0030), preserving the original video for future use.
Regarding claim 12, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the multiple client devices are assigned respective colors and the first drawing annotation is generated in a color assigned to the second client device (Loganathan, ¶0035, ¶0041 – user-selected color for annotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the annotation of Pegg as modified to include user-selected color based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to customize and distinguish their annotations.
Regarding claim 13, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein, when executed by the one or more processors, the stored instructions further configure the client device to: receive, with the incremental update to the current joint state data, drawing instructions for re-creating annotations resulting from interactions with respective graphical user interfaces of the multiple client devices, and
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the particular client device (Loganathan, ¶0030-¶0031, ¶0040 – video annotation is stored as an overlay based on annotation coordinates. Figs. 4A-4C with ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057, ¶0060-¶0062 – The video annotation is displayed at the times and frames corresponding to the annotation within the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drawing information of Pegg as modified to superimposing annotations based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent modification of the underlying video (Loganathan, ¶0030), preserving the original video for future use.
Regarding claim 15, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein generating the other visual representation in the graphical user interface of the client device comprises a progress bar and the progress bar comprises indicators
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
the progress bar comprises marking timestamps at which respective annotations were applied (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0027, ¶0057 and E214 – the timeline (progress bar) includes annotation indicators corresponding to annotation timestamps within the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the progress bar of Pegg as modified to include indications of annotation timing based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to identify and conveniently jump to key times within the playback (Loganthan, ¶0057).
Regarding claim 18, Pegg as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein, when executed by the one or more processors, the stored instructions further configure the client device to: toggle, at the client device, between displaying and not displaying re-created drawing annotations
However, Pegg as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loganathan discloses sharing a video with accompanying user-generated drawings (Loganathan, ¶0002, ¶0068-¶0069), including
superimposing the re-created annotation over a video frame of the video data that is streamed to the particular client device (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0030-¶0031, ¶0040 – video annotation is stored as an overlay based on annotation coordinates. Figs. 4A-4C with ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057, ¶0060-¶0062 – The video annotation is displayed at the times and frames corresponding to the annotation within the video)
and further discloses toggling, at the client device, between displaying and not displaying re-created drawing annotations superimposed over video frames of the video data, the re-created drawing annotations being generated based on incremental updates to the current joint state data that are received from the server (Loganathan, Fig. 2 with ¶0027, ¶0057 and E214 – the timeline (progress bar) includes annotation indicators corresponding to annotation timestamps within the video and enables users to jump to the time indication. ¶0052 – annotations may be removed from the video at timestamps following the annotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drawing information of Pegg as modified to superimposing annotations based on the teachings of Loganathan. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent modification of the underlying video (Loganathan, ¶0030), preserving the original video for future use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights