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 filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mikami has a different system architecture. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Mikaki discloses a screen (17 figure 1) connected to a second terminal (60 figure 1) connected to a remote server (web server 40 figure 1) via a network (internet 30). Therefore, the Mikami reference has exactly the same architecture as the instant application. The fact that the Mikami screen does much more than receiving a “button press” does not mean that it is unable to do it, in fact it does it also (paragraph 24).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, all the limitations are clearly discloses by Mikami as cited below, Gao was simply brought in to teach a remote server this combination its appropriate to save resources locally for the benefit of having resources available when needed.
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 and 3-13 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.
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.
Regarding claim 3, Mikami and Gao 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 and Gao 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 and Gao 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 and Gao 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 and Gao 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 and Gao 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 and Gao 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).
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.
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