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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al, US PGPub 2014/0362201 in view of Shimy et al, US PGPub 2011/0069940.
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen et al discloses a method comprising: determining that a first audio/video stream of a first content item with a first title is being provided to a first device associated with a first user from a first server of a first content provider (Figure 8, screen C, paragraph 46); determining that a second audio/video stream of a second content item with a second title different from the first title is being provided to a second device associated with a second user from a second server of a second content provider different from the first server (Figure 8, screen D, paragraph 46) wherein the second content item of the second audio/video stream is different from the first content item of the first audio/video stream and wherein the first title of the first content item is different from the second title of the second content item (Screens C and D have different content. Screen C shows a city while Screen D shows a countryside); determining that a gaze of the second user is directed to a display of the first device (Figure 9, paragraph 47); and in response to determining that the gaze of the second user is directed to the display of the first device: causing an audio portion of the first audio/video stream to be played by the second device simultaneously with the first audio/visual stream at the first device while simultaneously continuing to play the audio portion of the first audio/video stream at the first device (Figure 9 and paragraph 47 teach the second user changing his gaze and receiving audio signal C while the first user continues to receive audio signal C). Nguyen et al fails to teach causing the second audio/video stream to become paused at the second device. Shimy et al disclose causing the second audio/video stream to become paused at the second device (paragraph 135 discloses that when a user leaves a detection region, i.e. changes his gaze, the content is paused). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Nguyen et al per the teachings of Shimy et al for the purpose of allowing a user to not miss content when not engaged temporarily with that content.
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the first device and the second device are connected to a wireless network (Nguyen et al, Figure 1, paragraphs 31 and 32).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the gaze of the second user is directed to the display of the first device further comprises: receiving an image captured from the first device; and recognizing the image as a face of the second user (is met by Nguyen et al, paragraphs 31 and 33).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, based on the recognized face of the second user, that the second user is authorized to view the first audio/video stream or view content displayed on the first device (is met by Nguyen et al, paragraphs 31 and 33).
Regarding claim 12, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 2 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 8 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 9 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al in view of Shimy et al as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of McElroy, US Patent 11,924,512.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nguyen et al and Shimy et al does not disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the causing the second audio/video stream to become paused at the second device further comprises: identifying the second audio/video stream being provided to the second device via the wireless network based on metadata associated with the second audio/video stream; and temporarily preventing delivery of the second audio/video stream to the second device via the wireless network. However, McElroy discloses the use of metadata to identify audio/video streams (column 19 lines 36-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Nguyen et al and Shimy et al to include the use of metadata, as conventionally taught by McElroy, to identify the stream to be paused at the second device for the purpose of easily identifying media to be manipulated.
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 2, wherein the causing the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to be played by the second device further comprises: receiving over the wireless network the first audio/video stream; identifying the first audio/video stream being provided to the first device via the wireless network based on metadata associated with the first audio/video stream; decoding the audio portion of the first audio/video stream; combining and encoding the audio portion of the first audio/video stream; and distributing, over the wireless network, the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to the second device is met by the combination of Nguyen et al, Shimy et al, and McElroy as using metadata for identifying media as taught by McElroy can be applied to the audio signals in the combination of Nguyen et al and Shimy et al for the purpose of directing audio appropriately in the two device, two screen, gaze dependent environment.
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, further comprising: distributing the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to the first device simultaneously with distributing the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to the second device; and synchronizing the audio portion of the first audio/video stream distributed to the first device with the audio portion the first audio/video stream distributed to the second device (is met by Nguyen et al, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 3, further comprising: detecting that the gaze of the second user is no longer on the first device; terminating the audio portion of the first audio/video stream via the wireless network to the second device; and resuming delivery of the second audio/video stream to the second device via the wireless network (is met by Shimy et al, paragraph 137; the gaze of the user resumes the paused content which would, in the combination of Nguyen, Shimy et al, McElroy, resume delivery of the second audio/video stream and terminate delivery of the first audio/video stream.)
Regarding claim 14, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 3 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 4 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 5 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 6 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al in view of Shimy et al as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang et al, US PGPub 2022/0337697.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nguyen et al and Shimy et al fail to teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining that a gaze of the first user is not directed to the display of the first device or the second device ;and continuing delivery of the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to the first device via the wireless network. Huang et al teach determining that a gaze of the first user is not directed to the display of the first device or the second device; and continuing delivery of the audio portion of the first audio/video stream to the first device via the wireless network (paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Nguyen et al and Shimy et al per the teachings of Huang et al for the purpose of partially engaging a user with content when they are not looking at it.
Regarding claim 18, the system claim recites the same subject matter as that of method claim 7 and is rejected using the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 76 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian T Pendleton whose telephone number is (571)272-7527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
Brian T. Pendleton
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights