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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,967,252 B2 to Scioli.
Patent claim 16 of Scioli ‘252 further recites in relevant part the additional step of initiating the live lesson through the platform, the platform instructing one or more user to begin the live lesson, and the second layer comprising a second live recording showing at least one user’s swing or body position. Therefore, with respect to the recited limitations, patent claim 16 of Scioli ‘252 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claims 1 and 17. Moreover, however, patent claim 16 of Scioli ‘252 may not explicitly recite the platform accessible to the two or more users via a user interface on respective mobile devices. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that user interfaces of the respective mobile devices are utilized in order to facilitate the live lesson between the mobile devices, wherein the live lesson includes displaying live recording(s) on a plurality of displays associated with said two or more mobile devices, as recited in patent claim 16. Additionally, while application claim 1 is directed to an instruction facilitation system, and patent claim 16 of Scioli ‘252 is directed to a method of providing instruction, the system claim is an obvious variation of the method claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
platform recited in claims 1 and 17;
layer management module recited in claims 1 and 17;
memory management sub-module in claims 1 and 17; and
payment processing system in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Further, it is noted that the modules are being interpreted as inherently comprising a processor, as argued in the parent application (application number 17/856,214).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “said one or more users” recited in claim 5, ln. 2, claim 6, ln. 2, claim 8, ln. 2, and claim 10, ln. 2 should likely read “said two or more users” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites in part “said platform is configured such that said one or more users can stop, start, rewind, and fast forward said second layer within said first layer.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein a user can stop, start, rewind, and fast forward said second layer, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
Claim 6 recites in part “said platform is configured such that said one or more users can […] fast forward […] said third layer.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein a user can fast forward said third layer (see Specification, [0085], “The method may include performing one of the following steps after integrating said third layer into said first layer and prior to ending said first layer: starting said third layer; stopping said third layer; rewinding said third layer; further editing said third layer.”). Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
Claim 6 further recites “said platform is configured such that said one or more users can […] further markup said third layer.” However, the Specification fails to explicitly disclose further markup of said third layer (see Specification, [0085], “The method may include performing one of the following steps after integrating said third layer into said first layer and prior to ending said first layer: […] further editing said third layer. […] Said editing includes: […] marking-up said second layer” (emphases added)). Accordingly, claim 6 further lacks written description.
Claim 10 recites in part “said platform is configured such that said one or more users can adjust said third layer by one or more of rearranging the order of one or more frames of said third layer, adjusting magnification of said third layer at one or more timestamp, adjusting a playback speed of one or more frames of said third layer, adding additional markups, and removing markups.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein said platform is configured such that one or more users can perform one or more of the recited limitations to said third layer. Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
Claim 13 recites in part “payment by a student user to an instructor user of the system”. However, the Specification does not disclose wherein payment is provided to an instructor user of the system (see Specification, [0025]). Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barasch et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0081116 A1) (hereinafter “Barasch”) in view of Dalmia et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0379810 A1) (hereinafter “Dalmia”).
Regarding claim 1, Barasch discloses an instruction facilitation system ([0106], system for providing interactive lessons between a golfer and golf instructor) comprising:
a platform accessible by two or more users via a user interface on respective mobile devices, the platform configured for facilitation of an on-demand, live session between two or more mobile devices and including a layer management module (Figs. 1 & 7; [0022]; [0027]; [0030]; [0106]; [0133]; [0143-0144]; [0161]; [0195]; [0236], an on-line web application for a live lesson between one or more subscribers (golfers) and golf instructor(s), running under a browser plug-in capable of playing multiple types of media files, including modules that execute on the client processor, wherein any handheld device (e.g., smartphone) capable of executing software that provides access to the network, a web browser, and multimedia player support can function as the subscriber computer/client processor and as the instructor computer/client processor);
wherein the platform is further configured for selectively launching a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer (Figs. 1 & 37-41; [0025-0026]; [0087-0091]; [0114-0015]; [0171], selectively choosing what is displayed in the main viewing area (e.g., video of the golfer or the golf instructor, video of a recorded swing of the golfer, and/or annotated video of the golfer’s swing));
wherein said first layer comprises a live video recording between said two or more users (Figs. 1 & 38; [0087-0088]; [0108], wherein during the lesson session, video of both the golfer and the golf professional appear (see right-hand side of the screen showing videos of Philip Auerbach and Phil Auerbach) during the live, interactive audio/visual communication),
said second layer comprises a second live video recording within said first layer ([0090]; [0106]; [0111]; [0164]; [0166]; [0171], where the subscriber may display a golf swing live to the instructor after establishing a connection with the instructor, wherein the golf swing (data stream produced during the session) is recorded as a raw data file and can be played back and/or annotated by the instructor; Fig. 1; [0035]; [0108]; [0115-0117]; [0146], alternatively, wherein the live conferencing provides for uploading of action videos and annotation of same concurrently with live cameras on both ends), and
said third layer comprises markups on said second layer by at least one of said two or more users (Fig. 1; [0108]; [0114-0115]; [0117], wherein the video of the golfer’s swing can be annotated by the golf instructor/professional to assist in helping the golfer with his/her swing);
wherein said layer management module is configured for manipulating one or more of the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer, said manipulation occurring via a processor coupled to a memory, wherein said memory contains code for initiating, manipulating, terminating, or augmenting one or more of said first layer, said second layer, and said third layer, said code being executed by the processor ([0143-0146]; [0161-0164]; [0187]; [0195]; [0200]; [0213]; [0217]; [0239-0240]; [0236], wherein the live lesson system includes computers/client processors (subscriber computer(s) and instructor computer(s)) which execute web browsers that run a multimedia and application player, such as the Adobe Flash Player, which can play a variety of media files and perform executable applications written in the scripting language ActionScript, wherein the operations that are performed by one or more computers includes the manipulation by the processing unit of the computer of electrical signals representing data in a structured form).
Barasch further discloses disabling processes while waiting for media to download to increase download speed of the requested media (maintain or improve system performance) ([0219]). Barasch additionally discloses prioritizing events executed by the computer-implemented system, wherein session events have the highest priority and include starting, saving, and ending the session ([0217-0219]). While Barasch may not explicitly disclose the above in order to free up additional memory to maintain proper functioning of the system, including the two or more handheld devices (smartphones) used for live video calls (sessions), Dalmia teaches wherein insufficient memory impacts performance of systems (i.e., smart phones), and wherein a memory manager can reclaim memory by terminating non-essential (i.e., idle, background) processes when memory is low, freeing memory for smart phone applications (e.g., video calls) ([0002-0003], where memory managers can terminate (e.g., “kill”) processes by force quitting them which will create free memory, and where idle background processes (i.e., not required) are typically terminated before idle foreground processes; [0008]; [0033], wherein the memory manager can repeatedly determine whether or not memory needs to be recovered, and based on techniques known in the art which can measure the amount of free memory, the memory manager terminates processes that have low priorities (e.g., wherein a third level has a lower priority than second and first levels, wherein the first level is used when the software process is active)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a memory management sub-module (memory manager) in the layer management module for, for example, killing/disabling one or more system processes as necessary to free up additional memory to maintain proper performance of the smart phones, as taught by Dalmia, in the invention of Barasch in order to maintain proper system performance during execution of the application (live session (e.g., said first layer comprising the session (i.e., start and end of the video call)) between said two mobile devices) (Dalmia, [0002], noting that data processing systems, such as smart phones, often have limited memory, and applications and/or software processes that typically run or remain idle in the background use memory space, often causing computer system to have insufficient memory which impacts performance of the system; Barasch, [0133]; [0144]; [0217], wherein session events (starting, saving, and ending the session (first layer)) have the highest priority, and where sessions occur between handheld devices (e.g., smart phones) of a subscriber and an instructor).
Regarding claim 2, Barasch further discloses wherein: said processor is configured for saving one or more digital file of one or more of said first layer, said second layer, and said third layer and storing said one or more digital file in said memory ([0146]; [0164]; [0185]; [0234]; [0236], wherein data streams produced by participants (i.e., subscriber(s), instructor(s)) are recorded during the lesson and saved (e.g., in the memory system of the computer) as files to be accessed at a later time).
Regarding claim 3, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said two or more users can play back said one or more digital file on demand within said platform ([0146]; [0164]; [0166]; [0171]; [0185]; [0193]; [0234]; [0236], wherein the various data streams produced by the participants (i.e., subscriber(s), instructor(s)) are recorded during the lesson and saved as files to be accessed at a later time (e.g., for playback)).
Regarding claim 4, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said first layer is uninterrupted from beginning to end of each live session ([0023]; [0026], wherein the entire session, including video streams and annotations of same, is recorded and stored).
Regarding claim 5, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said one or more users can stop, start, rewind, and fast forward said second layer within said first layer (Figs. 1, 20, & 52; [0035]; [0108]; [0115-0117]; [0146]; [0173]; [0211]; [0217], wherein the video of the golfer’s swing in the main viewing area may be played/paused or rewound, and wherein a positional slider can be dragged to any point in the video file to fast forward to a later frame in the video).
Regarding claim 6, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said one or more users can stop, start, rewind, fast forward, and further markup said third layer (Figs. 20, 41, & 52; [0091]; [0106]; [0108]; [0114-0115]; [0117]; [0211]; [0217], wherein the video of the swing, which may include annotations, can be played/paused, rewound, and further edited (e.g., text added), and wherein a positional slider can be dragged to any point in the annotated video to fast forward to a later frame in the video).
Regarding claim 7, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said second layer is selectively displayed within said first layer ([0025-0026]; [0106]; [0114-0115]; [0166]; [0171], wherein the video of the golfer’s swing (second layer) may be selected for display in the main viewing area during the live video conference).
Regarding claim 8, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said one or more users can adjust said second layer by one or more of rearranging the order of one or more frames of said second layer, adjusting magnification of said second layer at one or more timestamp, and adjusting a playback speed of one or more frames of said second layer ([0119], wherein the subscriber is able to edit the video captured by the cameras (second layer) by, for example, zooming in on a particular portion of the user’s body (adjusting magnification of said second layer at one or more timestamp)).
Regarding claim 9, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said third layer is selectively displayed within said first layer (Figs. 1 & 37-41; [0022]; [0025-0026]; [0087-0091]; [0108]; [0114-0015]; [0171], wherein, for example, the video of the golfer’s swing with annotations (third layer) may be selected for display in the main viewing area during the live video conference).
Regarding claim 10, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said one or more users can adjust said third layer by one or more of rearranging the order of one or more frames of said third layer, adjusting magnification of said third layer at one or more timestamp, adjusting a playback speed of one or more frames of said third layer, adding additional markups, and removing markups (Figs. 1, 41, & 52; [0091]; [0101]; [0108], wherein, for example, the golf instructor (professional) can annotate the video of the golfer performing a swing (second layer) using a selection of different tools as well as provide additional markups, such as text).
Regarding claim 11, Barasch further discloses wherein: said second layer and said third layer are integrated into said first layer (Figs. 1 & 37-41; [0087-0091]; [0106]; [0108]; [0114-0115]; [0117]; [0146]; [0164]; [0166]; [0171], during the lesson session, the video of both the golfer and the golf professional appear (see right-hand side of the screens showing videos of Philip Auerbach and Phil Auerbach), the video of a golf swing is recorded or uploaded and played back during the video call (lesson session), and the golf instructor (professional) may provide annotations to the swing video during the video call to assist in helping the golfer with his/her swing).
Regarding claim 12, Barasch further discloses wherein: the system is configured for utilizing at least a camera of one of said mobile devices to launch said first layer (Figs. 1 & 37-38; [0022]; [0087-0088]; [0106]; [0121]; [0133]; [0144], wherein the live video conference may be initiated between handheld devices of a subscriber and an instructor, wherein the handheld devices may be a cell phone (i.e., smart phone) with a built in camera).
Regarding claim 14, Barasch further discloses wherein: said platform is configured such that said live session comprises a group instruction lesson (Fig. 8; [0045-0046]; [0106]; [0131]; [0134]; [0136]; [0166]; [0235], group golf lesson).
Regarding claim 15, Barasch further discloses wherein: said user interface comprises one of a mobile application and a web interface (Fig. 26; [0025]; [0027]; [0076]; [0106]; [0133]; [0144]; [0155]).
Regarding claim 16, Barasch further discloses wherein: said system is configured for facilitating remote golf instruction (Fig. 1; [0024-0026]; [0106]; [0109]; [0133], web based interactive golf lesson with a remote golf instructor).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for same reasoning (see Barasch, [0004]; [0024]; [0106], directed to a method and system for providing interactive lessons).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a method of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for same reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Barasch further discloses wherein: said first layer is uninterrupted from beginning to end of each live session ([0023]; [0026], wherein the entire session, including video streams and annotations of same, is recorded and stored); and said second layer and said third layer are selectively displayed within said first layer (Figs. 1 & 37-41; [0025-0026]; [0106]; [0087-0091]; [0108]; [0114-0015]; [0166]; [0171], where the video of the golfer’s swing may be selected for display in the main viewing area during the live video conference (lesson session), and wherein the video may be annotated (third layer) during the video conference and the annotated video may be selected for display in the main viewing area).
Regarding claim 20, Barasch further discloses wherein: said launching a live video recording between two or more users comprises launching a group instruction lesson (Fig. 8; [0045-0046]; [0106]; [0131]; [0134]; [0136]; [0166]; [0235], group golf lesson).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barasch in view of Dalmia, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of O’Day et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0335849 A1) (hereinafter “O’Day”)
Regarding claim 13, Barasch further discloses wherein a user buys lessons, and further, wherein memberships are available, where depending on the level of membership, different features are offered (Figs. 9 & 26; [0125]; [0138-0139], where a user buys lessons, and wherein membership plans are available, where an advanced membership includes a longer time for a swing analysis, as well as an online chat). However, Barasch may not further explicitly disclose a payment processing system configured for processing payment by a student user to an instructor user of the system. Nevertheless, O’Day, directed to providing a real-time training session between a mentor’s communication device and a mentee’s communication device ([0003]; [0017]; [0020]; [0039], wherein the devices may comprise a smartphone, or any other mobile device suitable for communication via the internet, cellular, wi-fi, etc., and the training includes video calling, recording, and screen sharing), teaches a payment gateway via which a mentor, mentee, recruiter, and service provider accounts are linked and payments are processed (Fig. 4; [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a payment processing system configured for processing payment by a student user (i.e., mentee), as taught by O’Day, to an instructor user (i.e., golf expert/professional) responsible for providing training/instruction in Barasch in order to process payments for the service/lessons provided to the student user.
Acknowledgments
It is acknowledged that the Notice of Allowability, filed 01/22/24, in the parent application (Application Number 17/856,214) stated that Barasch does not disclose the memory management sub-module dynamically identifying which system processes are required for the proper functioning of one or more active layer of said live session and which are not required, and the memory management sub-module selecting killing, starting, or modifying the priority of one or more system processes as necessary to free up additional memory while maintaining said proper functioning of said one or more active layer of said live session, and Dalmia fails to cure this deficiency (p. 3). However, upon further consideration, Barasch in view of Dalmia teaches these limitations, as presented above. That is, as noted above, Barasch discloses disabling processes in order to maintain or improve system performance (e.g., increase download speed of requested media), as well as prioritizing events executed by the computer-implemented system ([0217-0219]). While Barasch may not explicitly disclose the above functionalities in order to free up additional memory to maintain proper functioning of the system, the system including two or more handheld devices (smartphones) used for live video calls (sessions), Dalmia teaches wherein insufficient memory impacts performance of systems (i.e., smart phones), and wherein a memory manager can reclaim memory by terminating idle background processes when memory is low, freeing memory for smart phone applications, wherein smart phone applications include video calls ([0002-0003], where memory managers can terminate (e.g., “kill”) processes by force quitting them which will create free memory, and where idle background processes (i.e., not required) are typically terminated before idle foreground processes; [0008]; [0033], wherein the memory manager can repeatedly determine whether or not memory needs to be recovered, and based on techniques known in the art which can measure the amount of free memory, the memory manager terminates processes that have low priorities (e.g., wherein a third level has a lower priority than second and first levels, wherein the first level is used when the software process is active)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a memory management sub-module (memory manager) in the layer management module for, for example, killing/disabling one or more system processes as necessary to free up additional memory to maintain proper performance of the smart phones, as taught by Dalmia, in the invention of Barasch in order to maintain proper system performance during execution of the application (live session between said two mobile/handheld devices) (Dalmia, [0002], noting that data processing systems, such as smart phones, often have limited memory, and applications and/or software processes that typically run or remain idle in the background use memory space, often causing computer system to have insufficient memory which impacts performance of the system; Barasch, [0133]; [0144]; [0217], wherein session events (starting, saving, and ending the session (first layer)) have the highest priority, and where sessions occur between handheld devices (e.g., smart phones) of a subscriber and an instructor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2020/0081741 A1 – This reference teaches wherein smart phones adopt memory management systems that forcibly terminate select running processes to reserve free space of memory when the free space of memory is insufficient (e.g., Android has a memory management system called Low Memory Killer).
U.S. Pub. 2017/0134461 A1 – This reference teaches wherein insufficient memory in the mobile terminal may cause video problems, such as buffering, causing the video to be paused, blurriness, etc.
U.S. Pub. 2015/0332606 A1 – This reference teaches a real-time interaction between user and instructor devices, wherein a student user can provide a video to an instructor in real-time, and the instructor can provide feedback (e.g., video feedback, such as graphical elements added to the video to highlight elements of the student’s performance, demonstration of proper technique, etc.).
U.S. Pub. 2003/0220973 A1 – This reference teaches wherein a user can open a meeting recording file during an on-line meeting which is shared to all attendees of the on-line meeting, and wherein an attendee can annotate the shared information.
Mehta, Kaushal, “Now in public preview: Collaborative Annotation”, Microsoft Teams Public Preview & Targeted Release, 4 pages, Jun. 1, 2022 – This reference teaches wherein users can annotate a shared screen within a video call.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715