0149964 DETAILED ACTION
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 claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15 have been considered but are moot according to new ground of rejection discussed below.
Applicant argues the combination of cited references does not disclose feature of claim 1 as amended: in response to a third operation from the originator, transmitting a result display request, receiving from the distribution device a result which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on then result received,” because Bovenschulte, does not at any point contemplate a specific combination of results to be shown in a single screen. The other prior art are likewise silent as to this feature. Independent claims 3-11 are likewise patentable over the prior art for at least the same reason (page 16). This argument is respectfully traversed.
It is noted that the amended claim 1 (and other independent claims 3-11) does not recite the web browser and the viewer terminal are different.
In addition, it is also noted that Bovenschulte discloses real time ratings are based on user interactions/rating data collected from different platforms including platform with web browser/online browser and other platforms/user device and combined for displayed as real time rating/predictive audience ratings information on screen – see include, but are not limited to, figures 6, 10-14, paragraphs 0008-0010, 0035, 0042, 0046, 0060-0061, 0115, 0118; and its fully incorporated by reference, Thomas (US20050149964: : figures 9-10a, 11; Berezowski: figures 6, 9-15, 17-20).
Thus, Bovenschulte discloses combination of the results to be shown in a single screen (reactions/real time rating from different platforms/user devices to be shown/displayed as real time rating or predictive audience ratings on a single screen/display of one of user device).
In addition to Bovenschulte, Dury and other Archibong/Cheesman also disclose this features. For example, Dury discloses statistical data including responses/reactions/votes from different users (participants/spectators) are collected, combined and displayed on a single screen as hot list or heat map based on the selections/responses/votes – see Dury, include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0273, 0366, 0375, 0386, 0389, figures 6A, 6B, 25, 30-31. Or see Archibong discloses of receiving interactions/selections/votes from different viewer terminals and web browser and combine interactions/selections to be shown on screen with number of selections/users watching a particular program/content : figures 11, 22, 24-25, paragraphs 0059, 0084, 0086, 0090-0091, 0099; or see Cheeseman: paragraphs 0038-0039, 0051-0056).
Therefore, the combination of the references discloses all limitations recited in amended claims including “in response to a third operation from the originator, transmitting a result display request, receiving from the distribution device a result which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on then result received” as recited in amended claim 1 (and other independent claims).
For reasons given above, rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18 are discussed below. Claims 4 and 9 have been withdrawn.
It is also noted that the teaching of “transmitting a service start request and a question while distributing first video, the question corresponding to a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing video” is well-known in the art. See for example, Abecassis et al. (US 20180161681), US 20170072301 and their fully incorporated by references.
See also Boyland (US 6799326) for the concept of type of data such as global data stream provided from originating terminal (e.g., main facility) to the distribution device (e.g., television distribution facility) being the same as data transmitted to the distribution device while distributing first video (see for example, figures 3, 5-7, 9-12).
It is noted that non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See for example, MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2112.01(III). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exparte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material) see also BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2009-010851 (for Ser. No. 10/622,876) or BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2011-011929 (for Ser. No. 11/709,170), pages 6-7. In this case, a particular type of data such as “question”, “answer” could be considered as non-functional descriptive material and are not required to give patentable weight because these particular types of data do not functionally change the structure or operation of a system comprising a type of data (e.g., global data, national advertisement, etc.) from a one terminal being the same as the type of data transmitted to another terminal/distribution device while distributing a video and receiving another type of data (response/feedback, etc.) (see concept in Boyland reference above). The limitations “question” “answer” are only given patentable weight of types of data.
Although non-functional descriptive material are not required to be considered, all claim limitations including non-functional descriptive material are known by prior art as discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8, line 15, recites “the result” should be changed to - the result; -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dury et al. (US 20170006322) in view of Archibong et al. (US 20140068692) and further in view of Bovenschulte et al. (US 20070136753) and/or Cheesman et al. (US 20180060883).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by reference in Archibong (para. 0086, 0235) or Bovenschulte (para. 0035, 0096 including US 20050149964 -referred to as Thomas and US 20020056087 – referred to as Berezowski) in their entireties are treated as part of the specification of Archibong or Bovenschulte respectively (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Dury discloses a computer-readable non-transitory medium storing a program causing at least one processor in a terminal as an originating terminal used by an originator (storage/memory at game system and/or broadcaster device storing program/instructions causing at least on processor in game system and/or broadcast device used by a user/broadcaster – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1b-1d, 32-33, paragraphs 0391, 0396, 0399-0400) to perform :
distributing a first video to a distribution device, wherein the distribution device distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal (distributing first video/game from game system 120 and/or broadcaster device 140 to a distribution device such as broadcaster device and/or spectating system 100 (hereinafter referred to as distribution device), wherein the distribution device distributes a second video such as second broadcast video 126 and/or 142, which corresponds to the first video 142 and/or 121 to at least one spectator device(s) 160– see include, but are not limited to, figures 1b, 2a, 3d, 5, 28,paragraphs 0080-0083);
transmitting a service start request and in-game event(s)/tag to the distribution device in response to a first operation from the originator while distributing the first video, wherein the event/tag from the originating terminal is provided via the distribution device to an interface in response to the service start request, the event from the originating terminal being the same as an event transmitted by the distribution device to the internet while distributing the first video (transmitting a service start tag for event/voting/broadcaster input to the distribution device in response to a first operation of request for voting, start event, first broadcaster input operation from the user/broadcaster of game system/broadcast device while distributing the first video to the distribution device, wherein an event (vote/request for a response/answer/interaction/selection) from the game system and/or broadcaster device to an interface such as a GUI/broadcast content service in response to the service start request, the event from the game system and/or broadcaster terminal being the same as an event/vote request transmitted to the spectating system/distributing device while distributing the first video -see include, but are not limited to, figures 1b-2a, 3a, 6a, 8-9,paragraphs 0115-0118, 0120-0121, 0144, 0148, 0150, 0152, 0281, 0310 and discussion in “response to arguments” above);
in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmitting a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question (in response to a second operation such as stop tag, ending event, second input from the user/broadcaster performed after the first operation (e.g., start tag, beginning tag, etc.), transmitting a service end event/stop tag to the distribution device for stopping/ending providing the question/voting request/event/request for answer/interaction/selection– see include, but are not limited to, figures 1b, 3a-5, 6a, 10, paragraphs 0115-0117, 0144, 0148, 0150, 0152, 0281, 0310); and
in response to a third operation from a user, transmitting a result display request, receiving from the distribution device a result in which an answer via the interface to the event from the originating terminal provided via the interface and an answer via the viewer terminal to the event from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, wherein the second video includes the answer screen (in response to a third operation/request for displaying feedback/statistics/result, transmitting result/statistics feedback display request, receiving from the distribution device a result/feedback in which an response/answer/interaction via the interface to the event from the originating terminal provided via the interface and the answer/feedback from viewer terminal/different spectator/participant are combined/aggregated, and displaying the viewer terminal/spectator an answer screen with number of players that selected to participate and/or view the particular content/of viewers focusing on particular portion of content, and displaying on the spectator terminal feedback data/”hot” list, recommended content, statistics, heat map screen based on the interactions/feedback/ answers/votes/interactions/selections received, wherein, the second video includes screen with heat map/vote/interaction results – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5, 6B, 7B, 8, 10, 16, 18, 21, 30-31, paragraphs 0093, 0179-0180, 0194, 0335, 0358, 0386-0388 and discussion in “response to arguments” above).
Dury discloses spectating UI may be presented as a Web page of a game spectating system website via a Web browser (paragraph 0185, 0194, 0201, 0228, 0250). However, Dury does not explicitly disclose the interface is a web browser, a third operation is received from the originator, the event/in-game event comprises the term “question”.
Archibong discloses transmitting a service start request to distribution device in response to a first operation from an originator while distributing first video, wherein a question from originating terminal is provided via distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request, the event provided by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing first video and/or second video; executing the questionnaire through the web server to at least one viewer (providing from originator/source/provider/advertiser to distribution device while distributing first video to the distribution device, a event such as a call-to-action, a request for selection or vote via a web server device associated with social networking system 160 from distribution server 402/403 when receiving start request from the provider/advertiser and during distribution of video from the advertiser/video source– see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 4, 21-25, paragraphs 0205-0209, 0215);
in response to receiving a third operation, transmitting a result display request, receiving from distribution device a result in which an answer/interaction/feedback via the web browser to the event from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer/feedback/response via the viewer terminal to the event from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, wherein the second video includes the answer screen (in response to a request, transmitting a request for displaying on viewer device an answer screen corresponding to an answer of total users viewing and/or recording program/votes via a web browser to the requestion/request for interaction/votes combined for displaying on the user terminal, wherein the second video including the answer screen with number of users are watching, votes, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4, 9, 11, 21-31; paragraphs 0059, 0084, 0086, 0090-0091, 0099 and discussion in “response to arguments” above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dury with the teaching including providing question/event via distribution device to a web browser, event/question transmitted by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing video, and receiving a result in which an answer via the web browser to event from terminal provided via the web browser and answer via viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on viewer terminal an answer screen via the browser are combined based on the result received as taught by Archibong in order to yield predictable result of allowing web users to interact with each other or provide information including question regarding broadcast content easily (see for example, para. 0003, 0005, 0049).
Bovenschulte discloses transmitting a start request and a question to distribution device while distributing first video; in response to a third operation from originator, transmitting a results request, receiving a result from distribution device a result in which an answer via web browser and an answer via viewer terminal to the questions from originating terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, a second video includes the answer screen (transmitting start request and question/survey/rating request to distribution device while distributing first video from facility to distribution device at head end or local distribution station, in response to receiving an operation from originator/user at distribution facility and/or main facility, transmitting a request for displaying on the user device an answer/audience rating/accumulated of audience information corresponding to the rating/selection via a browser/user interface to the question (request for interaction/reaction/vote) provided by the browser/user interface, the second video including accumulated audience information/rating , wherein the result/real time rating/predicted real time rating information are combined answer/reactions/feedback received via web browser of user device and other terminals/platform are combined and displaying on display screen – see include, but are not limited to, Bovenschulte: paragraph 0033-0024, 0039, 0046, 0051; Thomas: figures 11, 13, paragraphs 0073-0074, 0065-0066; Berezowski: paragraphs 0055-0056, 0106).
Alternatively and/or alternatively, Cheesman discloses transmitting a service start request and a question to distribution device in response to a first operation from originator while distributing first video, wherein the question from originating terminal is provided via a web browser in response to the service start request, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing first video (administrator client device 106 and/or server 108 (hereinafter referred to as administrator device) transmits a service start request and a question to distribution device such as server 104 in response to a first operation such as entry of beginning time of question/survey from administrator device while distributing first video, wherein the question from the administrator device is provided via distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request, the question/survey question from the administrator client device being the same as a question transmitted by the server device to the web browser while distributing digital media event -see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-3c, paragraphs 0019. 0036, 0038, 0042, 0051-0056, 0058, 0079, 0087, 0090, 0093, 0097-0098, 0100, 0121 and discussion in “response to arguments” above an in previous office action).
In response a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmitting a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question (in response to second operation such as end time of question/survey from the creator/administrator performed after the first operation, transmitting a service termination request to end/terminating providing the question/survey - -see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-3B, paragraphs 0038-0039, 0055, 0079, 0087, 0090, 0093, 0097, 0100, 0107) ; and
In response to a third operation from the originator, transmitting a result display request, receiving from distribution device a result in which answers to the question provided to web browser and viewer terminal are combined, displaying on viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, video provided to viewer terminal includes the answer screen (in response to a third operation from the creator/administrator, transmitting a report request for displaying on respondent client device 110s an answer screen corresponding to an answer via the web browser to the question/survey provided via the web browser, content provided to the respondent client device 110 includes answer screen/report of user responses/answers – -see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-3B, 5b-5c, 7, paragraphs 0038, 0045, 0052, 0072, 0121, 0124-0126, 0145-0146, 0169 and discussion in “response to argument” above and in previous rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dury with the teachings including transmitting a service start request and a question to distribution device, the question from originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing video, receiving a results request from the originating terminal/source terminal and/or providing question via a web browser as taught by Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman in order to yield predictable result such as allowing original terminal/distribution terminal to control obtaining/retrieving of results or reducing the amount of data collected in the system (see for example, Thomas: paragraph 0073) or allowing originator/administrator of originating terminal/administrator device to easily create a question/survey, collect and generate screen answer/report of perception ratings during an event from a plurality of users (see paragraphs 0006, 0027, 0045).
Regarding claim 2, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses the computer-readable non-transitory medium of claim 1, wherein the result display request is capable of being transmitted after transmitting the service termination request (request to display results/real time rating is capable of being transmitted after transmitting the request to end service and/or question – see include, but are not limited to, Archibong: figures 21, 25, 29; Thomas: paragraphs 0065-0066, 0073; Cheesman: figure 7, paragraphs 0042, 0045, 0123-0125, 0145-0146).
Regarding claim 3, limitations that correspond to limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a computer-readable non-transitory medium storing a program causing at least one processor in a distribution device to perform:
receiving a first video from an originating terminal, and distributing a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal (the broadcaster device/spectating device or server receives a first video from video source/provider, and distributing the second video corresponding to first video to a spectator/client device -see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and include, but are not limited to, Dury: figure 1b; Archibong: figures 8-9; Cheesman: figures 1-3b, 7; Berezowski: figures 1, 2e);
while the second video is distributed to the viewer terminal, receiving a service start request and a question transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a first operation from an originator (while the video is distributed to the user device, receiving a service start request transmitted from the game system/broadcast device and/or administrator device in response to a first operation from the administrator/creator– see similar discussion in claim 1 above and include, but are not limited to, Dury: figures 1b-2a, 3a, 6a, 8-9,paragraphs 0115, 0144, 0148, 0150, 0152, 0281, 0310; Cheesman: figures 1-3B, paragraphs 0042, 0055, 0100);
in response to receiving the service start request, providing the question from the originating terminal via a web browser, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing the first video;
receiving an answer via the web browser to the question provided via a web browser;
combining an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal to form a result;
transmitting to the originator the result;
receiving a service termination request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation; and
in response to the service termination request, terminating providing the question, wherein the second video includes an answer screen corresponding to the result (see similar discussion in claim 1 above and include, but are not limited to, Dury: figures 1b-2a, 3a, 6a, 8-9, paragraphs 0115, 0144, 0148, 0150, 0152, 0281, 0310; Cheesman: figures 1-3B, paragraphs 0038, 0042, 0055, 0100, 0124-0126, 0145-0146, 0169; Archibong: figures 1, 4, 21-24, paragraphs 0205-0209, 0215; Bovenschulte: paragraph 0033-0024, 0039, 0046, 0051; Thomas: figures 11, 13, paragraphs 0073-0074, 0065-0066; Berezowski: paragraphs 0055-0056, 0106).
Regarding claim 5, limitations of a terminal that correspond to the limitations of “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a terminal as an originating terminal used by an originator comprising at least one processor that:
distributes a first video to a distribution device, wherein the distribution device distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
transmits a service start request and a question to the distribution device in response to a first operation from the originator while distributing the first video, wherein the question from the originating terminal is provided via the distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing the first video;
in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmits a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question; and
in response to a third operation from the originator, transmits a result display request, receives from the distribution device a result in which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, wherein the second video includes the answer screen (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, limitations of a method that correspond to the limitations of “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a method performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: distributing a first video to a distribution device from an originating terminal, wherein the distribution device distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
transmitting a service start request and a question to the distribution device in response to a first operation from an originator while distributing the first video, wherein the question from the originating terminal is provided via the distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing the first video;
in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmitting a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question; and
in response to a third operation from the originator, transmitting a result display request, receiving from the distribution device a result in which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result, wherein the second video includes the answer screen (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, limitations of a distribution device that correspond to the limitations of “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 3 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a distribution device comprising at least one processor that:
receives a first video from an originating terminal, and distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
while the second video is distributed to the viewer terminal, receives a service start request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a first operation from an originator;
in response to receiving the service start request, provides a question from the originating terminal via a web browser, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing the first video;
receives an answer via the web browser to the question provided via a web browser;
combines an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal to form a result;
transmit to the originator the result;
receives a service termination request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation; and
in response to the service termination request, terminates providing the question, wherein the second video includes an answer screen corresponding to the result (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, limitations of a method that correspond to the limitations of “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 3 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a method performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving a first video from an originating terminal, and distributing a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
while the second video is distributed to the viewer terminal, receiving a service start request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a first operation from an originator;
in response to receiving the service start request, providing a question from the originating terminal via a web browser, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing the first video;
receiving an answer via the web browser to the question provided via a web browser;
combining an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal to form a result;
transmitting to the originator the result;
receiving a service termination request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation; and
in response to the service termination request, terminating providing the question, wherein the second video includes an answer screen corresponding to the result (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of terminal in claim 5 and distribution device in claim 7 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 7. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses a system comprising: a terminal as an originating terminal used by an originator comprising at least one processor that:
distributes a first video to a distribution device, wherein the distribution device distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
transmits a service start request to the distribution device in response to a first operation from the originator while distributing the first video, wherein a question from the originating terminal is provided via the distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing the first video;
in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmits a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted to the distribution device while distributing the first video; and
in response to a third operation from the originator, transmits a result display request, receives from the distribution device a result in which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, wherein the second video includes the answer screen;
a distribution device wherein the at least one processor:
receives a first video from an originating terminal, and distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
while the second video is distributed to the viewer terminal, receives a service start request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a first operation from an originator;
in response to receiving the service start request, provides a question from the originating terminal via a web browser;
receives an answer via the web browser to the question provided via a web browser; receives a service termination request transmitted from the originating terminal in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation; and in response to the service termination request, terminates providing the question, wherein the second video includes an answer screen corresponding to the answer via the web browser to the question provided via the web browser, and
a viewer terminal that receives the second video (see similar discussion in the rejection of claims 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of terminal in claim 5 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 5. Particularly, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses system comprising:
a terminal as an originating terminal used by an originator comprising at least one processor that: distributes a first video to a distribution device, wherein the distribution device distributes a second video corresponding to the first video to a viewer terminal;
transmits a service start request to the distribution device in response to a first operation from the originator while distributing the first video, wherein a question from the originating terminal is provided via the distribution device to a web browser in response to the service start request, the question from the originating terminal being the same as a question transmitted by the distribution device to the web browser while distributing the first video;
in response to a second operation from the originator performed after the first operation, transmits a service termination request to the distribution device for terminating providing the question; and
in response to a third operation from the originator, transmits a result display request, receives from the distribution device a result in which an answer via the web browser to the question from the originating terminal provided via the web browser and an answer via the viewer terminal to the question from the originating terminal provided via the viewer terminal are combined, and displaying on the viewer terminal an answer screen based on the result received, wherein the second video includes the answer screen; and a viewer terminal that receives the second video (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claims 12-13, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman also discloses, wherein the first video is distributed from the terminal to the distribution device, and the second video is distributed from the distribution device to the viewer terminal, thereby the second video including the answer screen is displayed on the viewer terminal (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claims 14-15, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman also discloses wherein the viewer terminal transmits a comment to the distribution device or a comment distribution server during receiving the second video, and the terminal receives the comment from the distribution device or the comment distribution server and displays the comment (spectator/user device transmit a comment/chat/feedback/answer to the spectating device/distribution device or chat distribution server during the viewer terminal receiving and/or displaying the second video, and the terminal receives the comment from the distribution device or the comment distribution server for display the comment – see include, but are not limited to, Dury: figures 6A-10; Archibong: figures 11, 23, 35-36, paragraphs 0054, 0096, 100, 115, 0223-0224; Bovenschulte: paragraph 0070, figure 1; Cheesman: figures 3A-3B, 7, paragraphs 0031, 0112).
Regarding claims 16-18, Dury in view of Archibong, Bovenschulte and/or Cheesman discloses the computer-readable non-transitory media of claim 1 or system of claim 10, 11, wherein the answer via the web browser to the question provided via the web browser is provided by at least one user that is neither a viewer of the at least one viewer terminal nor an originator of the originating terminal (e.g., user/spectator/friend/other participant (not broadcaster/original game creator) that uses web browser to access Internet content/email/message/data related to the survey/question that is neither viewer that is not currently view the video nor the administrator/broadcaster – see include, but are not limited to, Dury: figures 6A-6B, 9, 10, 21-22, 32, paragraphs 0058, 0081, 0150, 0185, 0194; Archibong: figures 3-6, 15, 17, 21, 33, paragraphs 0100-0101, 0103, 0115, 0206; Bovenschulte: paragraph 0049; Cheesman: paragraphs 039-0040, 0046).
See also the teaching in US 10277944 and US 20180234738.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mushkatblat (US 20120311635) discloses systems and methods for sharing interaction media guidance information based on answer/selections received via browser and user terminal (see figures 5, 8-9).
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 AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
March 2, 2026