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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the interactive shopping layer is also loaded with the video…not at a later time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 2 has been amended to state, "receive a first request from a client device to load, within a first user interface, a video with an interactive shopping overlay that presents information regarding one or more items available for purchase during playback of a video." Applicant arguments on pages 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks regarding this amendment are implying that there is a requirement that the interactive shopping overlay must be loaded at the same time that the video is initially loaded. This requirement is not claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the read of a request from a client device to load a video within a user interface and the loaded video is a video “with”, or comprising, an interactive shopping overlay at any point during presentation of the video. There is no language requiring the load of the interactive shopping overlay simultaneously with the initial load of the video. The use of the word “with” does not necessitate any temporal properties.
The Official Notice presented as to the use of a single page application (“SPA”) and the use of a cookie including a session or user identifier obtained from the client device was not traversed and is accordingly taken as an admission of the fact noted.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 2-3, 5, 8, 12-13, 15, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al (hereinafter Carter) US 20150026728 in view of Low et al (hereinafter Low) US 20120239529.
Referring to claim 2, Carter discloses a computer system for providing in-video shopping functionality, the computer system comprising:
memory and at least one physical processor in communication with the memory and configured with executable instructions (see Fig. 31 and Paragraph 0122) that cause the at least one physical processor to:
receive a first request from a client device to load, within a first user interface, a video with an interactive shopping overlay that presents information regarding one or more items available for purchase during playback of a video (see Figs. 29-30, Abstract, and Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0092-0093, 0096-0098, and 0119-0129 for disclosing a first request from a client device/tablet computer to load a video for playback within an interface on the tablet computer, wherein an overlay is presented atop the video playback that enables shopping for items available for purchase);
send code and data to the client device to cause the client device to present the interactive shopping overlay over the video within the user interface (see Figs. 29-30, Abstract, and Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0097-0098, 0119-0120 for disclosing the requested application information/code is sent to the tablet computer and the interactive watching application (IWA) causes generation of a [video player layer/”Video” section of tablet computer seen in the left of section A of Figs. 29-30], wherein the video player layer is positioned beneath an [initial layer/overlay element 1005 of Figs. 29-30] associated with the previously selected code space and further causes initialization of an interactive content portion within the overlay layer that displays interactive content over the video player layer based on communications between a [interactive watching environment (IWE)/video player component] and received information/code associated with the overlay element, wherein a display area of the video player layer within the first page at least partially overlaps/overlays a display area of the overlay element within the first page);
during playback of the video on the client device, receive an indication that a user desires to purchase the one or more items (see Paragraphs 0065, 97-98, and 119-120 for disclosing the user of the tablet computer is able to issue an acquisition request for the item in the overlay element from within the overlay element, wherein Paragraph 0065 cites an example of the user selecting a single-touch purchase mechanism in an overlay display to complete a purchase of a song (no redirection, no interruption), further noting Paragraph 0098 discloses that the TV show can continue playing while the interactive interface in the overlay element is being displayed (while Paragraph 0098 also discloses pausing the video while obtaining further information related to the TV show, this is merely an example)); and
a first and second payment option (see Paragraph 0084).
Carter is unclear as to a a first selectable payment option and a second selectable payment option, receive, based on user selection of one of the first or second selectable payment options, cause one or more updates that enable the user to provide credentials previously established for an account of the user with a selected payment option via one or more calls to an application programming interface (API) associated with the selected payment option, receive tokenized payment information associated with the user, and initiate one or more transactions with the selected payment option, wherein the one or more transactions are completed based on the tokenized payment information.
Low discloses a checkout process (see Paragraph 0047);
cause presentation within the interactive shopping overlay of at a first selectable payment option and a second selectable payment option (see Fig. 2);
receive a user selection of one of the first or second selectable payment options (see Paragraphs 0029-0032);
cause one or more updates that enable the user to provide credentials previously established for an account of the user with a selected payment option via one or more calls to an application programming interface (API) associated with the selected payment option (see Paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0068);
receive tokenized payment information associated with the user (see Paragraphs 0074-0075); and
initiate one or more transactions with the selected payment option, wherein the one or more transactions are completed based on the tokenized payment information (see Paragraphs 0029-0035, 0068, and 0074-0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the third party payment processor of Low with the system of Carter in view of Low in order to attain the advantage of making it easier for prospective consumer to conduct secure transactions through a TV (see Low, Paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 3, Low discloses the at least one physical processor is configured to initiate at least a first transaction with the first third-party payment processing service and a second transaction with the second third-party payment processing service (see Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0031, 0105, and 0167).
Referring to claim 5, Carter discloses the one or more transactions are initiated and completed without redirecting a browser or application operating on the client device away from presentation of the video as seen in the rejection of claim 1. Low additionally discloses this concept as seen in Figs. 2-6.
Referring to claim 8, Carter discloses the video comprises a live stream broadcast comprising live video captured by a video camera of a streamer device, where frames of the live video are uploaded from the streamer device to a video hosting platform substantially in real time as the frames are captured by the video camera, and wherein the client device accesses the live stream broadcast from the video hosting platform (see Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0054-55, 0060-0061, 0097-0098, and 0119-0120 for disclosing the video is a live event/stream broadcast comprising live video captured by a video camera of a streamer device (interpreted as a video camera, which is necessary for the capturing and video streaming/broadcasting of a baseball game in live/in real time), where video (i.e., frames) of live video are uploaded from the capture/camera/streamer device to a video hosting platform (e.g., server/IWE/application platforms 200/205) and wherein the client device 210 access the live stream broadcast from the server/IWE).
Claims 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2, further noting Carter in view of Low discloses the method performed by the computer system seen in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Referring to claim 21, Low discloses the one or more items comprise a digital content item (see Paragraph 0029), the method further comprising causing the digital content item to be delivered to the client device after purchase via the interactive shopping overlay (as seen in the rejection above, further noting Paragraph 0021 discloses delivering the digital merchandise).
Referring to claim 22 Carter discloses initiating one or more transactions with a service to complete purchase of the one or more items during playback of the video on the client device and without interrupting playback of the video (see Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0120 for disclosing initiating a transaction with a service (e.g., Coca Cola or local pizza service) (e.g., the user is able to initiate a purchase of pizza from a local pizza service, further noting see Paragraphs 0065, 97-98, and 119-120 for disclosing the user of the tablet computer is able to issue an acquisition request for the item in the overlay element from within the overlay element, wherein Paragraph 0065 cites an example of the user selecting a single-touch purchase mechanism in an overlay display to complete a purchase of a song (no redirection, no interruption), further noting Paragraph 0098 discloses that the TV show can continue playing while the interactive interface in the overlay element is being displayed (while Paragraph 0098 also discloses pausing the video while obtaining further information related to the TV show, this is merely an example)). Low discloses the selected payment option as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 22.
Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al (hereinafter Carter) US 20150026728 in view of Low et al (hereinafter Low) US 20120239529, and further in view of Applicant-admitted prior art (hereinafter APA).
Referring to claim 4, Carter in view of Low discloses the interactive shopping overlay is presented on the client device in which the interactive shopping overlay presents content in synchronization with a video player layer that presents video content of the video as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Carter in view of Low is unclear as to the use of a single page application (“SPA”).
APA discloses the use of SPA in web documents is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carter in view of Low to use SPA in order to enhance the speed of the user experience and also consume less resources at the server through an efficient API.
Referring to claims 6 and 7, Carter in view of Low discloses identifying the one or more items as items for purchase in the one or more transactions as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Carter in view of Low is unclear as to use of a cookie including a session or user identifier obtained from the client device.
APA discloses the use of a cookie including a session or user identifier obtained from the client device is notoriously well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carter in view of Low to use cookies including a session or user identifier obtained from the client device in order to take advantage of the capabilities of a widely used feature of the widely used HTTP protocol.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claims 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al (hereinafter Carter) US 20150026728 in view of Low et al (hereinafter Low) US 20120239529, and further in view of Burbank et al (hereinafter Burbank) US 20200196018.
Referring to claim 9, Carter in view of Low discloses the one or more transactions are initiated as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Carter in view of Low is unclear as to initiating a transaction based at least in part on processing a vocal utterance of the user of the client device, wherein the vocal utterance matches a predetermined phrase previously configured to trigger a product purchase action.
Burbank discloses initiating a transaction based at least in part on processing a vocal utterance of the user of the client device, wherein the vocal utterance matches a predetermined phrase previously configured to trigger a product purchase action (see Paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0035-0040).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the vocal commands of Burbank with the system of Carter in view of Low in order to attain the desirable solution for enabling a user to conveniently purchase a good or service associated with a given media content segment (see Burbank, Paragraph 0035).
Referring to claim 10, Carter in view of Low, and further in view of Burbank discloses the vocal utterance is determined to match the predetermined phrase by code associated with the interactive shopping overlay, executed on the client device, that is configured to identify the predetermined phrase in audio data based on a sound signature (see Paragraphs 0060-0061).
Referring to claim 11, Burbank discloses the vocal utterance is determined to match the predetermined phrase at least in part by the computer system applying speech-to-text functionality with respect to audio data received from the client device (see Paragraphs 0060-0061).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
06/17/2026
Prosecution Insights