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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on December 11th, 2024 and November 5th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
This office action is responsive to application filed on September 20th, 2024. In this office action:
Claims 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 are pending.
Claims 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on September 20th, 2024 have been considered and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a first client, the multimedia control method comprising: ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a first client, the multi-user multimedia control method comprising: ...”
“... sending time information to the second client, such that the second client aligns the time thereof with that of the first client based on the time information ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “... sending time information to the second client, such that the second client aligns its time with that of the first client based on the time information ...”
“performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction, and sending the target control instruction to the second client, such that the second client synchronously performs the same control operation on the target multimedia” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction, and sending the target control instruction to the second client, such that the second client synchronously performs the same corresponding control operation on the target multimedia.”
Claim 2-6, 8-10 are objected to because of the following informality:
“The multimedia control method ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “The multi-user multimedia control method ...”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
“wherein determining a target control instruction based on each instruction time comprises: ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “wherein determining the target control instruction based on each instruction time comprises: ...”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
“... the instruction times of the at least two control instructions are located on the same timeline” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “... the instruction times of the at least two control instructions are located on a same timeline.”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
“... wherein, after determining a target control instruction based on each instruction time, the multimedia control method further comprises: ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “... wherein, after determining the target control instruction based on each instruction time, the multi-user multimedia control method further comprises: ...”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a second client, the multimedia control method comprising: ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a second client, the multi-user multimedia control method comprising: ...”
“... acquiring time information returned by the first client; aligning the time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “... acquiring time information returned by the first client; aligning time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information ...”
“performs a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction; receiving the target control instruction and performing the same control operation as the first client on the target multimedia.” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “performs a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction; receiving the target control instruction and performing the same corresponding control operation as the first client on the target multimedia.”
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality:
“wherein the step of aligning the time of the second client ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “wherein aligning the time of the second client ...”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a system including a first client and at least one second client, the multimedia control method comprising: ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “A multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a system including a first client and at least one second client, the multi-user multimedia control method comprising: ...”
“... sending time information to the second client; aligning, by the second client, the time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information ...” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “... sending time information to the second client; aligning, by the second client, time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information ...”
“performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction; ... receiving, by the second client device, the target control instruction and performing the same control operation as the first client on the target multimedia.” should read (Examiners’ suggestion) “performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction; ... receiving, by the second client device, the target control instruction and performing the same corresponding control operation as the first client on the target multimedia.”
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (Pub. No. US 2021/0250195); in view of Kunieda (Pub. No. US 2018/0052837).
Claim 1. Baker discloses [a] multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a first client, the multimedia control method (See Parag. [0030]; enables video content that is being shared during the communication session 128 to be played synchronously (e.g., at substantially the same playhead position 122) across numerous different client devices 114 that are being used to participate in the communication session 128) comprising:
sending time information to the second client, such that the second client aligns the time thereof with that of the first client (“presenter”) based on the time information, wherein there is at least one second client, and the multimedia sharing is an interactive function among a plurality of clients (See Parag. [0087]; transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data; the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices (at least one second client/ a plurality of clients) may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data (multimedia sharing) to begin synchronously (aligns the time) across the plurality of client devices. For example, the individual latency play instructions may include a latency delay value (time information) that prescribes an amount of time that the individual client devices are to wait, after receiving the corresponding latency play instruction, before initiating playback of the media content that is obtained via the media streams. See Parag. [0110-0115] and Fig. 6; “screen sharing data;” “imitates an environment experience that the presenter and the individual may be sharing.” See also Parag. [0081]);
in response to receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time, determining a target control instruction based on each instruction time (See Parag. [0083-0084]; determining the latency values for individual ones of the client devices includes periodically pinging the individual client devices and measuring an amount of time that it takes for the pings to be returned to (e.g., echoed back to) the sending device from the receiving device ... the latency monitor 110 may repeatedly calculate and re-calculate the latency values for the individual client devices based on a sequence of latency values that are stored in a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) Database. For example, the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time (a preset time). Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted. Examiner’s interpretation: The claimed “receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as receiving responses carrying latency values within the predefined interval (e.g., 2 seconds), where the latency values would be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client devices to play the media data according to latency values. In addition, The Examiner interprets “determining a target control instruction” as the determined most recent calculated values to be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client device(s) to play the media data according to latency values);
performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction, and sending the target control instruction to the second client, such that the second client synchronously performs the same control operation on the target multimedia (See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... the user may adjust the playhead position of the media content at the particular client device to a desired playhead position before providing user input to cause all of the other client devices to begin playback of the media content at the desired playhead position (a target multimedia); the user play instruction (control operation) may include an indication of the desired playhead position at which the media content is to begin playing synchronously across all of the client devices 114 (the second client) ... in response to the user play instruction, the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data. As described above, the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously across the plurality of client devices (the second client synchronously performs the same control operation on the target multimedia)).
Baker doesn’t explicitly disclose acquiring a time alignment request, which is sent by a second client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation.
However, Kunieda discloses acquiring a time alignment request, which is sent by a second client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation (See Parag. [0107]; when the terminal device 20c receives a user operation for assigning a marker performed at some timing, the terminal device 20c transmits a marker assignment request (time alignment request), including the time information indicating the time at which the marker assigning operation is received ... sets marker information including the time information that is included in the request, and stores the set marker information in the storage 1003, for example. In FIG. 7, (d) illustrates how a marker M that is based on the marker information is set at time t.sub.M. Parag. [0108]; ... timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself. See Parag. [0092]; a meeting is held using the interactive whiteboard 22 in the conference room 2a. The organizer of the meeting finds out the participants who are to participate in the meeting ... a participant participating in the meeting using the terminal device 20c over the network 30 (referred to as a remote participant). See also Parag. [0093]. Examiner’s interpretation: The meeting participants join a meeting to receive shared material).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Baker, to include acquiring a time alignment request, which is sent by a second client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation, as taught by Kunieda. This would be convenient such that the user using the terminal device 20c can listen to the speech and watch the video from the timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself (Kunieda, Parag. [0108]).
Claim 2. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 1,
Baker further discloses wherein determining a target control instruction based on each instruction time comprises:
comparing the instruction times of the at least two control instructions, and determining a control instruction with the latest instruction time as the target control instruction based on the comparison result (See Parag. [0083-0084]; ... the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time. Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values (latest instruction time) may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted).
Claim 3. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 1,
Baker further discloses wherein, after the time of the second client is aligned with that of the first client, the instruction times of the at least two control instructions are located on the same timeline (See Parag. [0083-0084]; ... the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time. Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted. Examiner’s interpretation: The calculated latency values are within a same timeline, where one is most recent and the other one becomes old).
Claim 4. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 1,
Baker further discloses wherein, after determining a target control instruction based on each instruction time, the multimedia control method further comprises:
in response to a sending end of the target control instruction being the first client, sending a rejection instruction to the second client among clients corresponding to the at least two control instructions (Parag. [0043]; the latency delays 126 that are defined within the individual latency play instructions 134 may indicate amounts of time that the receiving client devices 114 are to wait (e.g., after receiving the latency play instruction 134) before playing the video content. In this way, individual client devices 114 which are experiencing less networking latency than other client devices 114 may be instructed to wait an appropriate amount of time before playing the video content in order to allow enough time for all of the client devices 114 to receive a corresponding media stream 132. Thus, rather than each individual client device 114 starting to play the video content immediately upon receiving the video content (which would likely result in asynchronous playback of the video content), the individual client devices 114 may be caused to wait until all of the other client devices have also received the video content).
Claim 5. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 1,
Baker further discloses wherein the preset time is a time period for the first client to determine the target control instruction (See Parag. [0083-0084]; ... the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time (the preset time). Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted).
Claim 6. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 1,
Baker further discloses wherein the control operation includes at least one of a play operation, a pause operation, a progress control operation and an interactive operation (See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... the user play instruction (control operation) may include an indication of the desired playhead position at which the media content is to begin playing synchronously across all of the client devices 114), and the multimedia includes a video, a media file composed of at least one of images or texts and supporting playback (See Parag. [0110]; media streams can comprise a video feed, audio data which is to be output with a presentation of an avatar of a user, text data (e.g., text messages), file data and/or screen sharing data (e.g., a document, a slide deck, an image, a video displayed on a display screen, etc.), and so forth. See Parag. [0009]; the user may select a “play” or “share” command in association with the video to cause all of the other client devices to begin playback of the video at the desired playhead position).
Claim 7. Baker discloses [a] multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a second client, the multimedia control method (See Parag. [0030]; enables video content that is being shared during the communication session 128 to be played synchronously (e.g., at substantially the same playhead position 122) across numerous different client devices 114 that are being used to participate in the communication session 128) comprising:
acquiring time information returned by the first client; aligning the time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information (See Parag. [0087]; transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data; the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices (second client) may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously (aligns the time) across the plurality of client devices. For example, the individual latency play instructions may include a latency delay value (time information) that prescribes an amount of time that the individual client devices are to wait, after receiving the corresponding latency play instruction, before initiating playback of the media content that is obtained via the media streams. See Parag. [0110-0115] and Fig. 6; “screen sharing data;” “imitates an environment experience that the presenter and the individual may be sharing.” See also Parag. [0081]);
sending a control instruction carrying instruction time to the first client in response to a control triggering operation, such that the first client, in response to receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time, determines a target control instruction based on each instruction time, and performs a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction (See Parag. [0083-0084]; determining the latency values for individual ones of the client devices includes periodically pinging the individual client devices and measuring an amount of time that it takes for the pings to be returned to (e.g., echoed back to) the sending device from the receiving device ... the latency monitor 110 may repeatedly calculate and re-calculate the latency values for the individual client devices based on a sequence of latency values that are stored in a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) Database. For example, the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time (a preset time). Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted. See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... in response to the user play instruction (control operation), the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data ... Examiner’s interpretation: The claimed “receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as receiving responses carrying latency values within the predefined interval (e.g., 2 seconds), where the latency values would be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client devices to play the media data according to latency values. In addition, The Examiner interprets “determining a target control instruction” as the determined most recent calculated values to be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client device(s) to play the media data according to latency values);
receiving the target control instruction and performing the same control operation as the first client on the target multimedia (See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... the user may adjust the playhead position of the media content at the particular client device to a desired playhead position before providing user input to cause all of the other client devices to begin playback of the media content at the desired playhead position (a target multimedia); the user play instruction (control operation) may include an indication of the desired playhead position at which the media content is to begin playing synchronously across all of the client devices 114 (the second client) ... in response to the user play instruction, the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data. As described above, the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously across the plurality of client devices).
Baker doesn’t explicitly disclose sending a time alignment request to a first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation.
However, Kunieda discloses sending a time alignment request to a first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation (See Parag. [0107]; when the terminal device 20c receives a user operation for assigning a marker performed at some timing, the terminal device 20c transmits a marker assignment request (time alignment request), including the time information indicating the time at which the marker assigning operation is received ... sets marker information including the time information that is included in the request, and stores the set marker information in the storage 1003, for example. In FIG. 7, (d) illustrates how a marker M that is based on the marker information is set at time t.sub.M. Parag. [0108]; ... timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself. See Parag. [0092]; a meeting is held using the interactive whiteboard 22 in the conference room 2a. The organizer of the meeting finds out the participants who are to participate in the meeting ... a participant participating in the meeting using the terminal device 20c over the network 30 (referred to as a remote participant). See also Parag. [0093]. Examiner’s interpretation: The meeting participants join a meeting to receive shared material).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Baker, to include sending a time alignment request to a first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation, as taught by Kunieda. This would be convenient such that the user using the terminal device 20c can listen to the speech and watch the video from the timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself (Kunieda, Parag. [0108]).
Claim 8. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 7,
Baker further discloses:
wherein the time alignment request includes a first time when the request is sent, and the time information includes a second time when the first client receives the time alignment request (See Parag. [0083]; determine accurate and up-to-date latency values on a per-device basis by deploying a latency monitor 110 which calculates the networking latency associated with individual client devices based on the round-trip time that it takes for the individual pings to reach the client devices and then be returned to the one or more server devices. For example, assuming that each leg of these individual round-trips are equal in time, the latency value associated with any individual client device 114 may be assumed to be the measured round-trip time divided in half. See also Parag. [0066]);
aligning the time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information comprises:
determining a delay between the second client and the first client based on the first time, the second time, a third time when the time information is received, and a delay formula; adding the delay to a real time of the second client to achieve time alignment with the first client (See Parag. [0083-0084]; determining the latency values for individual ones of the client devices includes periodically pinging the individual client devices and measuring an amount of time that it takes for the pings to be returned to (e.g., echoed back to) the sending device from the receiving device ... the latency monitor 110 may repeatedly calculate and re-calculate the latency values for the individual client devices based on a sequence of latency values that are stored in a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) Database. For example, the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time. Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted. See Parag. [0086-0087]; in response to the user play instruction, the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data. As described above, the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously across the plurality of client devices).
Claim 10. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 7,
Baker further discloses wherein the step of aligning the time of the second client with that of the first client is executed a preset number of times every set time (See Parag. [0083-0084]; determining the latency values for individual ones of the client devices includes periodically pinging the individual client devices and measuring an amount of time that it takes for the pings to be returned to (e.g., echoed back to) the sending device from the receiving device ... the latency monitor 110 may repeatedly calculate and re-calculate the latency values for the individual client devices based on a sequence of latency values that are stored in a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) Database. For example, the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time).
Claim 11. Baker discloses [a] multi-user multimedia control method, applied to a system including a first client and at least one second client (See Parag. [0030]; enables video content that is being shared during the communication session 128 to be played synchronously (e.g., at substantially the same playhead position 122) across numerous different client devices 114 that are being used to participate in the communication session 128), the multimedia control method comprising:
sending time information to the second client; aligning, by the second client, the time of the second client with that of the first client based on the time information (See Parag. [0087]; transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data; the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices (second client) may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously (aligns the time) across the plurality of client devices. For example, the individual latency play instructions may include a latency delay value (time information) that prescribes an amount of time that the individual client devices are to wait, after receiving the corresponding latency play instruction, before initiating playback of the media content that is obtained via the media streams. See Parag. [0110-0115] and Fig. 6; “screen sharing data;” “imitates an environment experience that the presenter and the individual may be sharing.” See also Parag. [0081]), and sending a control instruction carrying instruction time to the first client in response to a control trigger operation; determining, by the first client in response to receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time, a target control instruction based on each instruction time, and performing a corresponding control operation on a target multimedia corresponding to the target control instruction, sending the target control instruction to the second client (See Parag. [0083-0084]; determining the latency values for individual ones of the client devices includes periodically pinging the individual client devices and measuring an amount of time that it takes for the pings to be returned to (e.g., echoed back to) the sending device from the receiving device ... the latency monitor 110 may repeatedly calculate and re-calculate the latency values for the individual client devices based on a sequence of latency values that are stored in a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) Database. For example, the latency monitor 110 may be configured to periodically transmit pings to the individual client devices according to some predefined interval such as, for example, 1 second, 2 seconds, or any other suitable interval of time (a preset time). Then, as the pings are echoed back to the latency monitor 110 by the individual client devices, the most recently calculated latency values may be added to the LIFO Database while the oldest values may be deleted. See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... in response to the user play instruction (control operation), the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data ... Examiner’s interpretation: The claimed “receiving at least two control instructions carrying instruction times within a preset time” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as receiving responses carrying latency values within the predefined interval (e.g., 2 seconds), where the latency values would be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client devices to play the media data according to latency values. In addition, The Examiner interprets “determining a target control instruction” as the determined most recent calculated values to be transmitted to the client device to instruct the client device(s) to play the media data according to latency values);
receiving, by the second client, the target control instruction and performing the same control operation as the first client on the target multimedia (See Parag. [0086-0087]; ... the user may adjust the playhead position of the media content at the particular client device to a desired playhead position before providing user input to cause all of the other client devices to begin playback of the media content at the desired playhead position (a target multimedia); the user play instruction (control operation) may include an indication of the desired playhead position at which the media content is to begin playing synchronously across all of the client devices 114 (the second client) ... in response to the user play instruction, the system transmits latency play instructions to the client devices based on the latency data. As described above, the manner in which the latency play instructions are transmitted to the client devices may prescribe intentional latency delays on some subset of the client devices to cause playback of the media data to begin synchronously across the plurality of client devices).
Baker doesn’t explicitly disclose sending, by the second client, a time alignment request to the first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation; acquiring, by the first client, the time alignment request.
However, Kunieda discloses sending, by the second client, a time alignment request to the first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation; acquiring, by the first client, the time alignment request (See Parag. [0107]; when the terminal device 20c receives a user operation for assigning a marker performed at some timing, the terminal device 20c transmits a marker assignment request (time alignment request), including the time information indicating the time at which the marker assigning operation is received ... sets marker information including the time information that is included in the request, and stores the set marker information in the storage 1003, for example. In FIG. 7, (d) illustrates how a marker M that is based on the marker information is set at time t.sub.M. Parag. [0108]; ... timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself. See Parag. [0092]; a meeting is held using the interactive whiteboard 22 in the conference room 2a. The organizer of the meeting finds out the participants who are to participate in the meeting ... a participant participating in the meeting using the terminal device 20c over the network 30 (referred to as a remote participant). See also Parag. [0093]. Examiner’s interpretation: The meeting participants join a meeting to receive shared material).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Baker, to include sending, by the second client, a time alignment request to the first client in response to a multimedia sharing joining operation, and acquiring, by the first client, the time alignment request, as taught by Kunieda. This would be convenient such that the user using the terminal device 20c can listen to the speech and watch the video from the timepoint to which the marker is assigned by the user him/herself (Kunieda, Parag. [0108]).
Claim 15 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 1.
Claim 16 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 1.
Claim 19 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 7.
Claim 20 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 2.
Claim 21 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 3.
Claim 22 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 4.
Claim 23 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 7.
Claim 24 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 2.
Claim 25 is taught by Baker in view of Kunieda as described for claim 3.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (Pub. No. US 2021/0250195); in view of Kunieda (Pub. No. US 2018/0052837); and further in view of Maistri et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0237784), hereinafter Maistri.
Claim 9. Baker in view of Kunieda discloses [t]he multimedia control method according to claim 8,
Baker in view of Kunieda doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: in response to the delay being greater than or equal to a delay threshold, displaying an alignment failure notification.
However, Maistri discloses in response to the delay being greater than or equal to a delay threshold, displaying an alignment failure notification (See Parag. [0047]; if the upload bandwidth is suddenly reduced and the RTT exceeds a RTT threshold value, an alert may be generated notifying the video conferencing system that the RTT threshold value has been exceeded).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the latency measuring using RTT, taught by Baker in view of Kunieda, to include in response to the delay being greater than or equal to a delay threshold, displaying an alignment failure notification, as taught by Maistri. This would be convenient to change one or more parameters affecting the upload bandwidth, such as frame size, frame rate, or other encoder settings) to reduce the bandwidth usage (Maistri, Parag. [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2012/0042047) – Related art in the area of data forwarding, (Abstract; One embodiment of the present invention sets forth a technique for synchronizing playback of digital content on two or more different content players. Each content player synchronizes a local time signal to a time reference signal maintained by a time server. Actions related to content playback are synchronized with respect to each local time signal for a given content player, which thereby synchronizes playback for a group of associated content players. Each content player may be advantageously configured with different playback options, allowing each user to have a better shared viewing experience than possible with prior art solutions that provide only one set of playback options.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445