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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 1, 3-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mikami , JP-2015204501-A (reference provided and translated by applicant) in view of Gao et al., US 2020/0322689 in view of Zabelin, US 2018/0131976.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-13, Mikami discloses a method for transmission of data associated with a visual code appearing at least temporarily in multimedia content during playing on a connected screen, the method comprising:
--establishing a pairing between the screen and at least one second connected terminal, distinct from the connected screen (paragraph 27 and 31);
--at least during playing the multimedia content comprising said code, making available to a user of the screen a human-machine interface connected to the screen for sending a request for data associated with the visual code, wherein the screen is connected to a server for receiving and playing the multimedia content (paragraph 12, 32 and 36); and
--upon receiving the request for data associated with the visual code by the connected screen, sending, by the connected screen, the request for data to the server (paragraph 12, 28 and 32);
the visual code appearing at a given timestamp after beginning of playing the multimedia content, the request for data associated with the visual code, coming from the connected screen, is being interpreted as associated with the visual code if the request is received in a preset time span after said given timestamp (paragraph 12-13, 36, 40, 44 and 50), and
said server storing data of the pairing in a memory of the server, identifying the second terminal as a recipient of the data associated with the visual code based on the stored data of the pairing, transmitting said data associated with the visual code to the second terminal (paragraph 27 and 31).
Mikami is silent about the server being a remote server.
In an analogous art, Gao discloses a remote server (paragraph 22-23 and 136).
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 Mikami’s method with the teachings of Gao. The motivation would have been to save resources locally for the benefit of having resources available when needed.
Although, Mikami teaches that the visual code appears a given time after beginning of playing the multimedia content (paragraph 12-13, 36, 40, 44 and 50); Mikami and Gao are silent about the given time is a given time stamp.
In an analogous art, Zabelin discloses the given time is a given timestamp (paragraph 60).
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 Mikami and Gao’s method with the teachings of Zabelin. The motivation would have been to know exactly where the visual code appear for the benefit of properly compute the statistics.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 3, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the remote terminal transmit said data associated with the visual code in the form of an access link to a service associated with the visual code (Mikami paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 4, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the multimedia content is received by the connected screen by implementation of a broadcast protocol (Mikami paragraph 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 5, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the visual code comprises a barcode for which an optical reader is able to retrieve said data associated with the visual code, said data associated with the visual code being associated with a service accessible through the second terminal, and wherein the human-machine interface uses a means distinct from an optical reader for requesting said data associated with the visual code (Mikami paragraph 19; Gao paragraph abstract 20, 22, 23, 29, 30+).
Regarding claim 6, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the human-machine interface comprises a remote control comprising a specific button, and the method comprises pressing said specific button causing the transmission of said request for the data associated with the visual code (Mikami paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 7, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the human-machine interface comprises a speech recognition module, and the method comprises the human-machine interface receiving speech spoken by the user and comprising at least one specific keyword causing the transmission of said request for the data associated with the visual code (Gao figure 11 paragraph 182).
Regarding claim 8, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, the connected screen is integrated with a connected television, the human-machine interface available to the user comprises a television remote control, and said remote control comprises a specific button for sending the request for said data associated with the visual code (Mikami paragraph 1 and 29).
Regarding claim 9, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, the screen is connected to a terminal for receiving content, the terminal being of a type of a set-top box, the human-machine interface available to the user comprises a set-top box remote control, said remote control comprising a specific button for issuing the request for said data associated with the visual code (Mikami figure 1, paragraph 27 and 31; Gao figure 2).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mikami in view of Gao in view of Zabelin in view of Zhu et al., US 2025/0265324.
Regarding claim 15, Mikami, Gao and Zabelin disclose the system according to claim 11.
Mikami, Gao and Zabelin are silent about the connected screen transmits the request without performing image analysis or decoding of the visual code.
In an analogous art, Zhu discloses the connected screen transmits the request without performing image analysis or decoding of the visual code (paragraph 21).
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 Mikami, Gao and Zabelin’s system with the teachings of Zhu. The motivation would have been to save resources locally for the benefit of having resources available when needed
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 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 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights