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 Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 1-24 are presently pending. Claim 24 is newly presented
Claims, as amended, obviate rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) raised in the preceding Office Action.
The newly presented claim 24 is subject to objections due to informalities as analyzed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 22, Applicant argues:
Interactions as taught by Lee “… are displayed simultaneously with the media stream but do not modify the rendering of the media itself. Lee therefore concerns social overlays and synchronized viewing rather than personalization settings affecting the technical rendering of the media content” (Remarks: Page 10, 5th paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has defined aspects of personalization metadata (Specification, as submitted, Page 32, lines 1-4) to be timing information and/or synchronization information. Therefore, Lee’s teachings, as analyzed for claim 22, and in line with Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the claim language, do read on the claim language. Furthermore, Synchronization/ timing modifies and affects the technical rendering. See Lee, (¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36]; See control buttons/ options 412-416, 508, 520, 516, [39]-[47]).
Lee’s mechanism “ensures that viewers are watching the same scene at the same time but does not involve sharing rendering parameters between devices” (Remarks: Page 10, 9th paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As analyzed above, timing/ synchronizations are parameters affecting rendering and are exchanged between devices per Lee’s teachings.
With respect to claims 1-21, and 23-24, Applicant has not advanced any additional arguments and relies on the same arguments rebutted with respect to claim 22.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to due to the typographical error, as “set-tings” should be corrected to “settings”,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., USPGPUB 2024/0089549 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses a method for enabling a shared personalized experience amongst multiple media receiving devices (Abstract, Figs. 1-7), the method comprising:
sending a media stream which contains metadata that enable individual personalization options for each user on a media receiving device (Client device shown in Fig. 1, ¶¶ [14], [36]);
receiving the media stream by at least two independent media receiving devices (Fig. 1, ¶ [33]);
at least one user interacting with the media content on at least one first media receiving device and applying his preferred personalization options to the content on the at least one first media receiving device (Interactions through interfaces shown in Figs 2-6; ¶ [36]);
sharing media content specific and personalized settings from the at least one first media receiving device to the at least one second media receiving device, such that the at least one second media receiving device receives at least the media content, a content identifier, the personalization settings, synchronization and/or timing information describing the time of each personalization setting change and control and/or personalization metadata describing the allowed interactivity and/or personalization settings (¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36]; See control buttons/ options 412-416, 508, 520, 516, ¶¶ [39]-[47]);
wherein the at least one second media receiving device applies the personalization settings associated with the media content and the personalization settings created on the one first media receiving device using the received synchronization and/or timing information (¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36]; See control buttons/ options 412-416, 508, 520, 516, ¶¶ [39]-[47]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses parsing the personalization metadata, or another message transmitted from another streaming client device (e.g. Figs. 5 and 6, use of personalization/ messaging through 508/ 520, 650/ 660), to retrieve information on at least one state of the other streaming client device, so as to apply the at least one state (¶ [48]), completely or partially, to a receiving device (¶¶ [41]-[58]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses wherein the social media message processor is configured to capture a state of user interface (UI) settings and device set-tings at a moment of user interaction (e.g. timing and synchronization data), and to encapsulate the state into the personalization metadata to represent an interactivity state of the streaming client device (¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36]; See control buttons/ options 412-416, 508, 520, 516, ¶¶ [39]-[47])
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 1-11, 13-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Schmidt et al., USPGPUB 2022/0417585 (hereinafter “Schmidt”).
Regarding client device of claim 1, Lee discloses all elements as analyzed with respect to the method of claim 22 where content is streamed over Internet (further see Fig. 1 showing the client devices 106 with communication interfaces linking through the network with interactivity servers 140/130/ 108, 115, and personalization servers 110, 114 providing custom content streaming) except that of generating the personalization metadata in a file independent from the at least one media stream.
However, Schmidt discloses a method, computer program product, and system for streaming personalized content (Abstract, ¶ [6], Figs. 1-4 and corresponding descriptions) using manifest files (e.g. Fig. 2b, ¶ [64]). The manifest files carry pointers to content objects (¶¶ [63]-[73]), therefore, personalization metadata are in a file (manifest) independent from the at least one media stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lee with Schmidt’s teachings in order to provide for plurality of customization options and utilization of the same for all forms and shapes of content in line with ubiquity of DASH protocols (Schmidt: ¶ [36]).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses generating the personalization metadata according to the state of the streaming client device (Lee: ¶ [48]).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses generating the personalization metadata to include at least one timing information indicating a time point in the at least one media stream in which an event in a personalization session has occurred (Lee: Fig. 4, 414/416; Fig. 5, 508/ 520 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 5, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses defining the timing information based on event(s) defined by the user through user’s input(s). (As disclosed by Lee through synchronized watching of the content (Lee: ¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36], [39]-[47]).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Lee and Schmid discloses generating the personalization metadata to include at least one address identification which is a link or other information on how to find out the at least one media stream and/or an identifier associated to the at least one media stream (Lee: ¶¶ [3], [25], [61]; Schmidt: ¶ [58]).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses generating the personalization metadata to include at least one authorization information, indicating a level of restriction of the at least one media stream which subscriber or streaming client device, or class of subscribers or streaming client devices, is admitted to receive the personalization metadata (As indicated in Lee’s Fig. 5/ 508, and Fig. 6 650/660, authorization is granted to a class of user such as “My Friends”).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses transmitting, to the interactivity server, the personalization metadata towards at least one second streaming client device, so as to set the second streaming client device according to the personalization metadata (Lee: Fig. 1, and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses:
receive the at least one media stream from the content service provider, that is received synchronously by at least one second streaming client device (Lee: ¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36], [39]-[47]),
in parallel, transmit, through the interactivity server, to the at least one second streaming client device, personalization metadata associated with already provided portions of the at least one media stream (Lee: ¶¶ [13], [30]-[31], [33], [36], [39]-[47]).
Regarding claim 10, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses parsing the personalization option metadata to retrieve information on at least one state of the other streaming client device, so as to apply the at least one state, completely or partially, to the streaming client device (Lee: Status of device as indicated by acceptance/ pending/ invited, ¶ [48]).
Claim 11 recites similar features as those of claim 9, therefore, rejected the same. With respect to the application of new personalization, the comments/ social overlays are changed/ renewed while the presentation is in progress. See Lee’s Fig. 5 and corresponding descriptions.
Regarding claim 13, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses:
the communication interface is configured to request to, and receive, through the interactivity server from a second streaming client device, further personalization metadata generated by the second streaming client device and describing personalization settings for the at least one media stream (Lee: Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ [48]-[57]),
wherein the social media message processor is configured to apply the personalization settings, obtained from the further personalization metadata, to personalization options, so as to provide to a decoder, or a transcoder, the at least one media stream with the personalization settings (Lee: Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ [48]-[57]).
Claim 2 recite similar features as those of claim 1, therefore, rejected the same.
The device of claim 14 recites similar features as those of the device of claims 1 and 13, therefore, rejected the same.
Claim 15 recite similar features as those of claim 10, therefore, rejected the same.
Claim 16 recites similar features as those of claim 11, therefore, rejected the same.
Regarding claim 17, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses wherein the metadata engine is configured to modify the personalization settings obtained from the personalization metadata to generate subsequent personalization settings addressing subsequent personalization options and/or personalization settings (Lee: ¶¶ [48]-[71]),
wherein the communication interface is configured to transmit, through the interactivity server to the second streaming client device, subsequent personalization metadata describing subsequent personalization settings of the at least one media stream (Lee: ¶¶ [48]-[71]).
Regarding claim 18, the system of Lee and Schmidt discloses generating new personalization metadata from second personalization settings, and send the new personalization metadata through the interactivity server to the second streaming client device (Lee: ¶¶ [48]-[71]).
The streaming server of claim 21 recites similar features as those of the device of claim 2, therefore, is rejected the same.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Schmidt, further in view of Schildbach et al., USPGPUB 2021/0014578 (hereinafter “Schildbach”).
Regarding claim 12, the system of Lee and Schmidt is not explicit in wherein the personalization metadata include at least one of preferred dialog level settings, preferred language settings, and preferred accessibility settings.
However, Schildbach discloses a method, system, and computer program product for personalization of media data for playback (Abstract), wherein the personalization metadata include at least one of preferred dialog level settings, preferred language settings, and preferred accessibility settings (¶¶ [23], [49]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lee and Schmidt with Schildbach’s teachings in order to provide for widely expected operations/ interoperability with various linguistic, dialog, and accessibility options.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Schmidt, further in view of Scott et al., USPGPUB 2011/0264523 (hereinafter “Scott”).
Regarding claim 19, the system of Lee and Schmidt is silent on performing an evaluation on whether the personalization settings match the capabilities of the streaming client device and, in case of positive result of the evaluation, the personalization settings are actually applied, and, in case of negative result of the evaluation, the personalization settings are not applied and/or an evaluation non-acknowledgement is sent through the interactivity server to the second streaming client device.
However, Scott discloses a method, system, and computer program product for identifying devices that have been communicating with each other and that have some common attribute; identifying content to be shared that matches the common attribute; and transmitting said content (Abstract). Scott discloses that such sharing is subject to performing an evaluation on whether the personalization settings match the capabilities of the streaming client device and, in case of positive result of the evaluation, the personalization settings are actually applied, and, in case of negative result of the evaluation, the personalization settings are not applied and/or an evaluation non-acknowledgement is sent through the interactivity server to the second streaming client device (¶ [122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lee and Schmidt with Scott’s teachings in order to ensure proper delivery of content to devices with disparate capabilities.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Schmidt, further in view of Mate et al., USPGPUB 2023/0171557 (hereinafter “Mate”).
Regarding claim 20, the system of Lee and Schmidt is silent on wherein the media system used for enabling a shared multi-device and multi-user personalized experience is MPEG-H 3D Audio.
However, Mate discloses a method, system, and computer program product for social sharing of content/ VR/AR wherein the media system used for enabling a shared multi-device and multi-user personalized experience is MPEG-H 3D Audio (¶¶ [15], [19], [44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lee and Schmidt with Mate’s teachings in order to provide for widely expected operations/ interoperability with AR/VR technologies of shared experiences.
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 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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 J 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights