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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, and 18-26 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The Examiner has brought in Ryman (2013/0071085) to disclose the newly amended feature.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 18-19, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozu (2011/0126105) in view of Ryman (2013/0071085).
As for claims 1 and 11, Isozu discloses a system for providing timestamp markers in content items, comprising:
a processor; a memory, wherein modules are stored on the memory for execution by the processor (Fig. 2), the modules comprising:
a timestamp marker generating module (bookmark setting unit 109);
a timestamp marker management module (bookmark setting unit 109);
the timestamp marker generating module being configured for:
receiving a content item, wherein the content item is a video file (movie; [0058], [0017]);
receiving a timestamp generating command (“user selection”) from a first user device (“user selection of the display subject of the movie content that the content display unit is displaying”; [0059], [0066]); and
generating a timestamp marker that marks a time point in the content item upon receiving the timestamp generating command (temporal position of user selection in content is acquired; [0059], [0066]),
wherein the timestamp marker comprises a frame of the video file (bookmark comprises a thumbnail of the frame; [0055], [0059], [0088]),
the timestamp marker management module (bookmark setting unit 109) being configured for:
storing the timestamp marker (stores the bookmark; [0115], [0132], [0134]);
receiving a timestamp retrieving command from the first user device ([0006], [0009], [0018]); and
retrieving the timestamp marker upon receiving the timestamp retrieving command to allow playback from the time point ([0006], [0009], [0018]).
However, Isozu fails to disclose:
wherein the timestamp marker is associated with a period of time corresponding to when the timestamp marker is generated, and wherein the period of time has a customizable length;
In an analogous art, Ryman discloses:
wherein the timestamp marker is associated with a period of time corresponding to when the timestamp marker is generated (User defines the marker and the marker is associated with an interval [0199], [0352]) and
wherein the period of time has a customizable length (User modifies the interval of time [0197], [0199], [0350], [0352]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Ryman, for the advantage of reflecting the amount of time the user requires to comprehend the rendered data.
As for claims 2 and 12, Isozu discloses further comprising:
receiving an annotation (comment) from the first user device ([0085]); and
adding the annotation to the timestamp marker ([0085]).
As for claims 8 and 18, Isozu discloses further comprising:
sharing the timestamp marker to at least one second user device ([0044], [0061], [0071], [0115], [0134]).
As for claims 9 and 19, Isozu discloses further comprising:
receiving comments from the at least one second user device ([0150], [0085], [0044], [0123], [0151]); and
adding the comments from the at least one second user device to the timestamp marker ([0150], [0085], [0044], [0123], [0151]).
As for claims 22 and 25, Ryman discloses associating a video with the timestamp marker, wherein the video is stored in an online video sharing platform ([0080], [0102]).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozu and Ryman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seker (2014/0158760).
As for claims 3 and 13, Isozu and Ryman fail to disclose:
generating a quick response code associated with the timestamp marker.
In an analogous art, Seker discloses:
generating a quick response code associated with the timestamp marker ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu and Ryman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Seker, for the advantage of enabling enhanced consumer engagement.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozu and Ryman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0187809) and Kritt (2015/0106852).
As for claims 4 and 14, Isozu and Ryman fail to disclose categorizing the timestamp marker based on a user-defined rule.
In an analogous art, Suermondt discloses categorizing the timestamp marker ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu and Ryman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Suermondt, for the advantage of organizing for easier retrieval.
However, Isozu, Ryman and Suermondt fail to disclose:
Categorizing based on a user-defined rule;
In an analogous art, Kritt discloses:
Categorizing based on a user-defined rule ([0021]-[0022]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu, Ryman, and Suermondt’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Kritt, for the advantage of categorizing content to reflect a user’s preference.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozu and Ryman as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Taoka (2015/0238864).
As for claims 10 and 20, Isozu and Ryman fail to disclose wherein the timestamp marker is shared while the content item is being played on the first user device, the method further comprises:
receiving a joining request from the at least one second user device;
determining whether to accept the joining request; and
synchronizing the content item being played on the first user device and the at least one second user device upon acceptance of the joining request.
In an analogous art, Taoka discloses:
receiving a joining request from the at least one second user device ([0019], [0020], [0038]);
determining whether to accept the joining request ([0019], [0020], [0038]); and
synchronizing the content item being played on the first user device and the at least one second user device upon acceptance of the joining request ([0015], [0034], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu and Ryman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Taoka, for the advantage of enabling users to watch the same content concurrently.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozu and Ryman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Latulipe (2013/0145269).
As for claims 21 and 24, Isozu and Ryman fails to disclose wherein the period of time comprises a duration prior to a time when the timestamp marker is generated.
In an analogous art, Latulipe discloses the period of time comprises a duration prior to a time when the timestamp marker is generated ([0012], [0031], [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu and Ryman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Latulipe, for the advantage of enabling users to understand the context of the video better.
As for claims 23 and 26, Isozu and Ryman fails to disclose associating a video with the timestamp marker, wherein the video is stored in a social media platform.
In an analogous art, Latulipe discloses associating a video with the timestamp marker, wherein the video is stored in a social media platform (Youtube; [0082]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isozu and Ryman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Latulipe, for the advantage of enabling any user to access the content from anywhere.
Conclusion
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 SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421