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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim elements “metadata engine” (in claims 1, 2, and 14) and “repository” in claim 21, are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses (they use) a generic placeholder “…component”, “... unit” or “... module”, modified by functional language “configured to...” or “for...” or “so that...”, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure to achieve the claimed function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier (MPEP 2181). However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function.
In the instant case, the original written description (see Figs. 1-12 and corresponding descriptions) shows the use of a general purpose computer that perform the claimed functions of limitations and merely references to a general purpose computer without providing any detailed explanation of the appropriate programming/algorithm to support a structure for that corresponding module to perform the claimed function. For that reason, the claims are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-13, 20, and 15-19 depend on claims 1 and 14, respectively, and are so rejected.
Claim 21 is further rejected as it is not clear how the repository is enabling the rendering/ effectuation of the personalized options.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are further rejected, as claims 1 and 2 recite “… file independent from the at least one audio stream”, which lacks antecedent, therefore, not clear as to what audio stream is being referred to.
Claims 3-13 and 20 depend on claim 1, therefore, rejected the same.
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 22-23 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 devise 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]).
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 1 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 audio stream.
However, Schmidt discloses a method, computer program product, and system for streaming personalized content (Abstract, ¶ [6], Figs. 1-4 and corresponding descriptions), through the use of 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 audio 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, or at least conditioned by, 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 discloses 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 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, or another communication message, 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, or another message transmitted from another streaming client device, 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 metadata engine 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.
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