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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barvo et al. (hereinafter ‘Barvo’, Pub. No. 2021/0352359) in view of Broberg et al. (hereinafter ‘Broberg’, Pub. No. 2021/0409830).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 19 and 21-23 Barvo teaches a video synchronous playback system (Fig. 5), comprising:
a first terminal device (108a, Fig. 5), comprising a first screen, wherein the first screen is configured to display a first display interface, the first display interface comprises a first display window and a first playback configuration control area, wherein the first display window is configured to display a first video, and the first video is associated with a first playback configuration ([0007]; [0006]; [0026]-[0028]; [0063]; [0083]-[0085]); and
a second terminal device (108b, Fig. 5), comprising a second screen, wherein the second screen is configured to display a second display interface, the second display interface comprises a second display window, the second display window is configured to display a second video, and the second video is associated with a second playback configuration ([0007]; [0006]; [0026]-[0028]; [0063]; [0086]-[0088]),
wherein content of the first video and content of the second video are the same (the shared content is the same selected during a video chat selection among the parties. It is ‘co-watching’; [0025]-[0027]), and
wherein in response to the first playback configuration control area being operated, the first terminal device is configured to change the first playback configuration associated with the first video displayed on the first display window is changed, and the second terminal device is configured to adjust the second playback configuration associated with the second video displayed on the second display window is correspondingly adjusted according to the first playback configuration ([0063]; [0083]-[0088]), and
wherein the first terminal device is configured to generate and transmit an command signal to the second terminal device, in response to the second terminal device receiving the command signal, the second terminal device is configured to output a second playback signal corresponding to the second playback configuration associated with the second video to the first terminal device, and the first terminal device is configured to update the first playback configuration associated with the first video according to the second playback signal (when any of the devices co-watching content performs a change on the content configuration, a signal is sent to the other devices and either automatically updates its own content based on the change or gives the option/ allows the user to manually adjust a configuration element such as the audio, [0031]-[0033]; [0036]-[0038]).
On the other hand, Barvo does not explicitly teach that the signal is an authorization signal.
However, in an analogous art, Broberg teaches a system for simultaneous media presentation, which could be audio, video, etc. (Abstract; [0003]). The system teaches allowing simultaneous viewing of a given content among multiple devices. The different devices/users have different access permissions, where premium devices have full access to manipulate the stream (i.e. pause, fast-forward, etc.; [0071]-[0074]; [0086]). On every request to manipulate the shared content, a session master determines the different permissions of the requests and transmits the commands to the rest of the devices. Additionally, a session master temporarily permits, makes the decision, that free accounts devices can participate in a same shared playback session without limitations ([0086]-[0088]; [0090]; [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barvo’s invention with Broberg’s feature of transmitting an authorization signal for the benefit of allowing the provider of the shared playback the ability of charging the different users and allow free account users to experience and possible account upgrade.
Regarding claim 2, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the first terminal device further comprises a first processor and a first communication interface, and the first processor is configured to execute:
in response to at least one of a control command generated by the first playback configuration control area being operated and expiration of a timer, outputting a first playback signal corresponding to the first playback configuration through the first communication interface (Barvo: [0062]-[0065]; [0101]-[0105]),
wherein the second terminal device is configured to receive the first playback signal and output the second video (Barvo: [0063]-[0065]; [0101]-[0105]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the second terminal device comprises a second processor and a second communication interface, and the second processor is configured to execute:
outputting the second video through the second communication interface; and receiving the first playback signal from the first terminal device through the second communication interface, and updating the second playback configuration according to the first playback signal (Barvo: [0062]-[0065]; [0101]-[0105]).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 14 and 20, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the second processor of the second terminal device is further configured to execute:
obtaining a time difference between a first playback progress of the first playback configuration and a second playback progress of the second playback configuration according to the first playback signal (Barvo: [0069]-[0076]); and
in response to the time difference being greater than a threshold, updating the second playback progress of the second playback configuration of the second video according to the first playback signal (Barvo: [0069]-[0076]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the second processor is further configured to execute: receiving the authorization command signal from the first terminal device through the second communication interface; and in response to receiving the authorization command signal, outputting the second playback signal corresponding to the second playback configuration to the first terminal device through the second communication interface, wherein the first processor of the first terminal device is configured to update the first playback configuration of the first video according to the second playback signal (Barvo: [0083]-[0088]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the first processor of the first terminal device is further configured to execute:
outputting a stop authorization command signal to the second terminal device through the first communication interface, wherein the second terminal device receives the first playback signal from the first terminal device, and updates the second playback configuration of the video according to the first playback signal (Barvo: [0083]-[0088], [0124], where the signals include pausing signals).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the control command comprises at least one of: play, pause, stop, video quality, rewind, fast forward, seek to a specific time of the first video, and a playback rate (Barvo: [0083]-[0086]; [0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the first processor of the first terminal device is further configured to execute: transmitting the first playback signal to the second terminal device through the first communication interface based on a communication protocol, wherein the communication protocol comprises Web Socket (Barvo: [0146]; [0154]).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein the first processor of the first terminal device is further configured to execute:
in response to receiving a join signal from the second terminal device, transmitting the first playback signal to the second terminal device (Barvo: [0049]; [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Barvo and Broberg teach wherein a playback source of the first video comes from a cloud server (Barvo: [0049]; [0137]; [0138]).
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 OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421