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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11757951 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap the subject matter of the ‘951 claims.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12126661 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims , they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap the subject matter of the ‘661 claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20150172338-A1 to Moran et al. (“Moran”).
As to claim 1, Moran disclose(s) a method of operating a video watch party, comprising:
transmitting an invitation to join a video watch party to respective smart televisions of at least two members of a viewer’s friends list; (Moran; 201 fig. 3; sending to each member of the group an invitation to watch the media content [0018])
selecting members from among the at least two members of a viewer’s friends list who (i) accepted the invitation, (Moran; who accepted the invitations; [0139]) and are currently viewing a common program; (Moran; selecting subscribers; 210; fig. 3; [0134]; common media content [0139]; [0120]; selecting comprises content currently watched by at least one friend; [0051]; [0132])
transmitting to each selected member’s respective smart television an instruction to simultaneously display the common program together with a representation of all selected members. (Moran; presenting members of the new group on a display of the client with the content item; [0052]; subscribers currently watching the content; 215; see Fig. 2B; the media content is synchronized by distributing a reference; [0119])
As to claim 2, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a current program being viewed by the at least two members of the viewer’s friends list to obtain one or more current programs being viewed by the at least two members of the viewer’s friends list; (Moran; identifying a currently presented media content item; 402; fig. 4)
and identifying members from among the at least two members of a viewer’s friends list who are currently viewing the common program, wherein the common program is from among the one or more current programs, and wherein the step of transmitting an invitation to join a video watch party to respective smart televisions of at least two members of a viewer’s friend’s list comprises transmitting the invitation to the respective smart televisions of the members from among the at least two members of the viewer’s friends list who are currently viewing the common program. (Moran; generate a display of users logged into the system; [0134]) (Moran; selecting subscribers; 210; fig. 3; [0134]; common media content [0139]; [0120]; currently watched by subscribers; [0132])
As to claim 3, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the representation of each selected member from among all selected members is selected from the group consisting of an image of the selected member, a graphical representation of the selected member, and a real time video feed of the selected member. (Moran; avatars and/or nicknames; [0133])
As to claim 4, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the instruction to simultaneously display the common program together with a representation of all selected members comprises an instruction to simultaneously display the common program together with a text message display region and a representation of all selected members. (Moran; chat; [0026]; [0105];)
As to claim 5, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting a current playback time of the common program for one of the selected members based on a current playback time of the common program for another of the selected members. (Moran; synchronize by reference such as timeframe; [0119])
As to claim 6, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the step of selecting members from among the at least two members of a viewer’s friends list who (i) accept the invitation, and are currently viewing a common program comprises selecting members from among the at least two members of a viewer’s friends list who (i) accept the invitation, are currently viewing a common program, and agree to have a current playback time of the common program adjusted on their respective displays. (Moran; accepting the invitation; [0139]; teaches agreeing to synchronize by reference such as timeframe; [0119])
As to claim 7, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a peer-to peer network, wherein the peer-to-peer network comprises the respective smart televisions of the selected members. Moran; peer to peer connections; [0113])
As to claim 11, Moran disclose(s) a system for operating a watch party, comprising:
a computer processor unit operatively connected to a smart television display; (Moran; processor; [0086])
a non-transitory computer readable medium (Moran; media; [0086])
having computer executable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the computer processor, perform the steps of claim 1.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 12, Moran disclose(s) a method of participating in a video watch party, comprising:
displaying on a smart television display an invitation to join a video watch party if a program being viewed on the smart television display by a viewer is being concurrently viewed by at least one other viewer on a respective at least one other smart television display; (Moran; presenting members of the new group on a display of the client with the content item; [0052]; subscribers currently watching the content; 215; see Fig. 2B; the media content is synchronized by distributing a reference; [0119])
receiving an indication of acceptance of the invitation; (Moran; who accepted the invitations; [0139])
displaying on the smart television display a video watch party interface that includes a region displaying the program. (Moran; fig. 2C; [0116])
As to claim 13, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 12, wherein the video watch party interface includes a representation of the at least one other viewer concurrently viewing the program. (Moran; selecting subscribers; 210; fig. 3; [0134]; common media content [0139]; [0120]; selecting comprises content currently watched by at least one friend; [0051];[0132]; Fig. 2C)
As to claim 16, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 12, further comprising:
capturing image data for the viewer and querying a viewer identification database with the captured image data to obtain the viewer identity data for the viewer. (Moran; camera monitor participation level of participants; [0065]; using face detection algorithms; face teaches identity data; [0201])
As to claim 17, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 16, further comprising:
using a facial recognition algorithm to obtain the viewer identity data for the viewer based on the captured image data for the user. (Moran; detecting one reference facial feature of participant; [0071]-[0073])
As to claim 18, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 12, further comprising:
detecting that the viewer is no longer viewing the program; (Moran; detecting presence or absence; [0071]-[0073])
and displaying on the video watch party display interface a graphic element indicating that the viewer is no longer viewing the program. (Moran; displaying an interactive notice of participation level; [0075]-]0076])
As to claim 19, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 12, further comprising:
detecting a content disapproval gesture, wherein the step of detecting a content disapproval gesture comprises capturing gesture data and querying a gesture database with the captured gesture data. (Moran; identify certain gesture; [0142])
As to claim 20, Moran disclose(s) a system for participating in a watch party, comprising:
a computer processor unit operatively connected to a smart television display;
and a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the computer processor, perform the following steps:
displaying on the smart television display an invitation to join a video watch party if a program being viewed on the smart television display by a viewer is being concurrently viewed by at least one other viewer on a respective one of at least one other smart television display;
and displaying on the smart television display a video watch party interface that includes a region displaying the program.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Moran in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20150082330-A1 to Yun et al. (“Yun”).
As to claim 14, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 12,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
transmitting to a content recognition server, one selected from audio fingerprint data and video fingerprint data extracted from the program being viewed on the smart television display by the viewer.
Yun discloses transmitting to a content recognition server, one selected from audio fingerprint data and video fingerprint data extracted from the program being viewed on the smart television display by the viewer. (Yun; audio and video analyzed using fingerprint database; [0037])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the audio and video fingerprint databases of Yun and the identifying media content of Moran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with media content. Using the fingerprint database of Yun would allow for the media content to be identified by its unique composition.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 15, Moran-Yun disclose(s) the method of claim 14, further comprising:
transmitting to the content recognition database, viewer identity data for the viewer in association with the one selected from audio fingerprint data and video fingerprint data extracted from the program. (Yun; facial feature database; [0037]; facial recognition analysis; [0042])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Moran in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20160150011-A1 to Le Nerriec et al. (“Le Nerriec”).
As to claim 8, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 7,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
identifying a network manager from among the selected members by receiving data indicating a quality of a connection to the peer-to-peer network for each respective smart television of the selected members;
and identifying a one of the respective smart televisions that has a connection quality greater than others of the respective smart televisions and selecting as the network manager the selected member corresponding to the one of the respective smart televisions.
Le Nerriec discloses identifying a network manager from among the selected members by receiving data indicating a quality of a connection to the peer-to-peer network for each respective smart television of the selected members; (Le Nerriec; available bandwidth; [0060])
and identifying a one of the respective smart televisions that has a connection quality greater than others of the respective smart televisions and selecting as the network manager the selected member corresponding to the one of the respective smart televisions. (Le Nerriec; best or greatest amount of available bandwidth; [0060])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the selecting node leader Le Nerriec and the P2P network Moran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with P2P. Using the bandwidth of Le Nerriec would allow for the leader to be chosen based on the best of a specified criteria.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Moran in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20180020253-A1 to Møller et al. (“Møller”).
As to claim 9, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 7,
but does not expressly disclose further comprising randomly selecting a network manager from among the selected members.
Møller discloses comprising randomly selecting a network manager from among the selected members. (Møller; electing a leader using random number; [0036])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the randomly selecting of node leader and the P2P network of Møller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with P2P. Using the random selection of Møller would allow for the leader to be elected fairly.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran-Thomas in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20140348061-A1 to Salkintzis et al. (“Salkintzis”).
As to claim 10, Moran disclose(s) the method of claim 7,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the step of establishing a peer-to-peer network comprises assigning an IP address to each respective smart television of the selected members.
Salkintzis discloses assigning an IP address to each respective smart television of the selected members. (Salkintzis; assigning IP addresses to each device in P2P group; [0004])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the IP address assigning of Salkintzis and the P2P network of Moran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with a P2P. Using the IP address assignments would allow for the P2P network to route traffic to P2P nodes.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445