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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler; Cameron et al. US 20220253902 A1 (hereafter Fowler) and in further view of Lueth; Jacquelynn R. et al. US 20120224024 A1 (hereafter Lueth).
Regarding claim 1, “a distribution system comprising: a video distribution unit that distributes live video to a first viewer terminal of a first viewer who is watching the video online; and a service provision unit that accepts answers to the questions from both the first viewer terminal and a second viewer terminal of a second viewer who is watching the live performance at a venue” Fowler Fig. 1, 3, 5-6 and para 149-154 teaches a first terminal of a first viewer element 14b is a remote user device and a second terminal 14a of a second viewer that is located at an event within a venue; para 75, 161-163 and 180-181, 212 disclosing a distribution system comprising servers for identifying remote user and user at the venue and providing access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue. With respect to a service provision unit that accepts answers to the questions from both the first viewer terminal and a second viewer terminal of a second viewer, Fowler para 217 teaches allowing for real time data/polling of event attendees wherein attendees is references to both local and remote viewers and wherein para 175 teaches elements for acquiring data from users relating to user engagements comprising user responses to questions.
In an analogous art, Lueth teaches enabling a server for providing a service to virtual audience members with a remote audience devices to communicate with a participant at a live event and capturing voting/judge/ response (para 21-27 an aggregator may be configured to receive data and/or audio transmissions originating from a plurality of remote audience devices 102. Using an aggregator or series of aggregators, data bursts may be counted from numerous locations very quickly, and these tallies may be added together to create a single constantly growing number that may then be used, for example, to incrementally change something and/or to show public opinion (as in a voting method)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fowler’s invention comprising a distribution system comprising servers for identifying remote user and a user at the venue and providing said users access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue and enable said users to provide feedback to displayed content by further incorporating known elements of Lueth for enabling a server for providing a service to virtual audience members with a remote audience devices to communicate with a participant at a live event and capturing voting/judge/ response and utilize an aggregator to receive data and/or audio transmissions originating from a plurality of audience devices to show voting results and show public opinion.
Regarding claim 2, “further comprising: a presence determination unit that determines whether the second viewer is at the venue based on whether a communication device located at the venue can communicate with the second viewer terminal” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Fowler teaches para 75, 161-163 and 180-181, 212 disclosing a distribution system comprising servers for identifying the location of a remote user and user at the venue and providing access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue. See also para 59-70 utilizing a geofence for determining user devices near the venue to communicate with the venue servers. See also para 153-155 “Information encoded on or in each tag in the system (10) may include an address to direct a request (e.g., for a Web page) from the user device (14a, 14b) to a server or the like on the network (18) such as a server on platform (20). The address may be in the form of a uniform resource identifier (URI) such as a uniform resource locator (URL), according to a non-limiting embodiment. In this way, when the user scans the tag (16a, 16b) with the user device (14a, 14b), the user device (14a, 14b) sends a request to the appropriate network (18) location.
Regarding claim 3, “further comprising: a location information acquisition unit that acquires location information of the second viewer terminal from the second viewer terminal; and a presence determination unit that determines whether the second viewer is at the venue based on the location information” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein Fowler teaches para 13, 18, 46, 141, 151, 157, 175 identifying the location of the user device; para 75, 161-163 and 180-181, 212 disclosing a distribution system comprising servers for identifying the location of a remote user and user at the venue and providing access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein a link for downloading an application that runs on the second viewer terminal is provided at the venue, and the distribution system further comprising: a presence determination unit that determines whether the second viewer is at the venue based on whether communication with the application is possible” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein Fowler teaches para 13, 18, 46, 141, 151, 157, 175 identifying the location of the user device comprising location of user device in relation to an obtained link; para 75, 161-163 and 180-181, 212 disclosing a distribution system comprising servers for identifying the location of a remote user and user at the venue and providing access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue. See also para 59-70 utilizing a geofence for determining user devices near the venue to communicate with the venue servers. See also para 153-155 “Information encoded on or in each tag in the system (10) may include an address to direct a request (e.g., for a Web page) from the user device (14a, 14b) to a server or the like on the network (18) such as a server on platform (20). The address may be in the form of a uniform resource identifier (URI) such as a uniform resource locator (URL), according to a non-limiting embodiment. In this way, when the user scans the tag (16a, 16b) with the user device (14a, 14b), the user device (14a, 14b) sends a request to the appropriate network (18) location.”
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the service provision unit accepts the responses through operations on the application” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein Fowler Fig. 2 and para 108, 163-165, 168, 175, 185 providing a portal application for capturing user interactive engagement; see also para 217 teaches allowing for real time data/polling of event attendees wherein attendees is references to both local and remote viewers and wherein para 175 teaches elements for acquiring data from users relating to user engagements comprising user responses to questions.
Regarding claim 6, “further comprising: an image acquisition unit that acquires image data of the second viewer captured at the venue, wherein the service provision unit analyzes the image data to extract at least one of movement, posture, or action of the second viewer and accepts the extracted at least one of movement, posture, or action as the answer” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein Fowler para 165 teaches providing an offer to the users and enabling the users to scan an image of a tag such that when a user scans an image is understood as an answer to accept the offer.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler; Cameron et al. US 20220253902 A1 (hereafter Fowler) and in further view of Lueth; Jacquelynn R. et al. US 20120224024 A1 (hereafter Lueth) and in further view of Kahn; Philippe Richard et al. US 9998789 B1 (hereafter Kahn).
Regarding claim 7, Fowler and Lueth are silent with respect to analyzes the image data and accepts, as the answer, a number of lights equipped on the second viewer terminal that are illuminated as recited in “further comprising: an image acquisition unit that acquires image data of the second viewer captured at the venue, wherein the service provision unit analyzes the image data and accepts, as the answer, a number of lights equipped on the second viewer terminal that are illuminated.” In an analogous art, Kahn teaches the deficiency (see Kahn col. 4:11-32 utilizing LEDS incorporated into the mobile device as feedback responses; see also col. 9:56-67, col. 18:3-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fowler’s invention comprising a distribution system comprising servers for identifying remote user and a user at the venue and providing said users access to live or recorded video of the event occurring at the venue and enable said users to provide feedback to displayed content by further incorporating known elements of Lueth for enabling a server for providing a service to virtual audience members with a remote audience devices to communicate with a participant at a live event and capturing voting/judge/ response and utilize an aggregator to receive data and/or audio transmissions originating from a plurality of audience devices and further incorporating known elements of Kahn’s invention for facilitating audience interaction comprising utilizing a user’s mobile device comprising feedback via audio, visual, and/or tactile outputs incorporating LEDs in order to capture audience responses and sentiments to show public opinion.
Regarding claim 8, “further comprising: an audio acquisition unit that acquires audio data collected at the venue, wherein the service provision unit accepts, as the answer, a volume of the audio data” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-7 wherein Kahn further discloses audio feedback provided to user indicates selections (col. Col. 7:7-34, col. 8:1-32 and col. 10:63-67 to col. 12:1-61).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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 Flynn can be reached. 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.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421