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 .
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12167065. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, and 15 of ‘065 anticipate claims 1, 8, and 15 herein.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0070524), hereinafter Iyer, in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0141589), hereinafter Taylor.
Regarding claim 1, Iyer shows
A method to facilitate a collaborative media experience by a multi-media platform (Fig. 1, 107/105/102) that hosts a plurality of recorded media content, the method comprising: ([0048-0049]; [0173])
receiving data identifying recorded media content
receiving a command to initiate the collaborative media experience over a network; (Fig. 3, 3002; [0177-0178]; i.e. The host provides a command to the sync server to initialize the watch party.)
in response to the command, initiating at least two streams (Fig. 1, 110-1 and 114-1; i.e. sync and conference links) between the client device (Fig. 1, 104-1; i.e. client device of the host) of the first user and the multi-media platform, wherein one stream is a playback control channel (i.e. sync link) and another stream is a live media stream, (i.e. conference link including user reactions) ([0178]; [0170]) the playback control channel enabling control of playback of the recorded media content in the queue; (i.e. first-in/first-out buffer) ([0113]; [0060-0061]; [0063-0064])
receiving a request to join (i.e. acceptance of invitation to join the watch party) the collaborative media experience from a client device (Fig. 1, 102-2) of a first secondary user; ([0181])
in response to the request, transmitting data (i.e. host sync data and host reactions) from the playback control channel ([0190-0191]; [0168]) and the live media stream to the client device of the first secondary user; ([0170])
receiving a communication (i.e. first secondary user reaction) from the client device of the first secondary user; and ([0170]; [0042]; [0078]; Fig. 1; i.e. reactions of a given user are received by the conference engine on a conference link)
sending the received communication to one or more other client devices, associated with other secondary users, that are part of the collaborative media experience, including the client device of the first user that is a source of the collaborative media experience. ([0170]; [0042]; [0078]; i.e. Reactions by any user device may be shared with all of the other user devices which includes the host/first user device.)
However, Iyer fails to show
receiving data identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device of a first user, the queue including at least one of the plurality of the recorded media content for playback during the collaborative media experience;
Taylor shows
receiving data (i.e. indication of media item) identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device (i.e. first playback device) of a first user, (i.e. first listener) ([0142]) the queue including at least one of the plurality of the recorded media content for playback during the collaborative media experience; ([0136])
the playback control channel (Fig. 1B; Fig. 6; [0133]; [0099]; i.e. network connection between first playback device and computing device) enabling control of playback of the recorded media content in the queue ([0160])
Taylor and Iyer are considered analogous art because they involve shared playback sessions. Iyer shows a shared viewing experience where the host identifies a particular piece of content to share with other users. Taylor shows that the content may already exist in the queue of the host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer to incorporate the teachings of Taylor wherein receiving data identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device of a first user, the queue including at least one of the plurality of the recorded media content for playback during the collaborative media experience. Doing so provides that the host would not experience any delay in retrieving the content during the sharing session.
Regarding claim 4, Iyer in view of Taylor shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. Iyer in view of Taylor further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the live media stream includes live commentary (i.e. reaction) from one or more users in the collaborative media experience. (Iyer: [0170]; [0042])
Regarding claim 6, Iyer in view of Taylor shows all of the features with respect to claim 4. Iyer in view of Taylor further shows
The method of claim 4, further comprising one of:
mixing the live commentary (i.e. reactions) from the one or more users into the live media stream on a server (Fig. 1, 102; i.e. sync server) hosting the collaborative media experience; or (Iyer: [0171])
mixing the live commentary from the one or more users into the live media stream on the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience. (Iyer: [0171])
Regarding claim 7, Iyer in view of Taylor shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. Iyer in view of Taylor further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the client device (i.e. host user device) of the first user that is the source of the collaborative media experience is configured to provide revokable privileges (i.e. presenter) for the first secondary user. (Iyer: [0059])
Regarding claim 8, Iyer in view of Taylor shows
A computing system comprising: (Iyer: Fig. 1, 102; Fig. 2, 102)
a processor; and (Iyer: Fig. 2A, 202)
a memory (Iyer: Fig. 2A, 204) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to perform operations comprising: (Iyer: [0053-0055])
The combination of Iyer and Taylor shows all of the claimed method steps as detailed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 4 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 6 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 7 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, Iyer shows
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (Fig. 2A; [0053-0055])
receiving data identifying recorded media content ([0176-0177]) the plurality of recorded media content and the collaborative media experience hosted at a multi-media platform; (Fig. 1, 107/105/102) ([0048-0049]; [0173])
receiving a command to initiate the collaborative media experience over a network; (Fig. 3, 3002; [0177-0178]; i.e. The host provides a command to the sync server to initialize the watch party.)
initiating at least two streams (Fig. 1, 110-1 and 114-1; i.e. sync and conference links) between the client device (Fig. 1, 104-1; i.e. client device of the host) of the first user and the multi-media platform, wherein one stream is a playback control channel (i.e. sync link) and another stream is a live media stream, (i.e. conference link including user reactions) ([0178]; [0170]) the playback control channel enabling control of playback of the recorded media content in the queue; (i.e. first-in/first-out buffer) ([0113]; [0060-0061]; [0063-0064])
hosting the collaborative media experience over the network by transmitting data (i.e. host sync data and host reactions) from the playback control channel ([0190-0191]; [0168]) and the live media stream to one or more other client devices associated with respective secondary users; (Fig. 1, 104-2/N; ([0170])
receiving a request to join the collaborative media experience (i.e. acceptance of invitation to join the watch party) from a client device of a first secondary user of the secondary users; ([0181]; Fig. 3A, 3008)
connecting to the client device of the first secondary user based on the request; (Fig. 3A, 3008/3012; [0184])
receiving a communication (i.e. first secondary user reaction) from the client device of the first secondary user; and ([0170]; [0042]; [0078]; Fig. 1; i.e. reactions of a given user are received by the conference engine on a conference link)
sending the received communication to the one or more other client devices including the client device of the first user that is a source of the collaborative media experience. ([0170]; [0042]; [0078]; i.e. Reactions by any user device may be shared with all of the other user devices which includes the host/first user device.)
However, Iyer fails to show
receiving data identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device of a first user, the queue including at least one of a plurality of a recorded media content planned for playback during a collaborative media experience
Taylor shows
receiving data (i.e. indication of media item) identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device (i.e. first playback device) of a first user, (i.e. first listener) ([0142]) the queue including at least one of the plurality of the recorded media content for playback during the collaborative media experience; ([0136])
the playback control channel (Fig. 1B; Fig. 6; [0133]; [0099]; i.e. network connection between first playback device and computing device) enabling control of playback of the recorded media content in the queue ([0160])
Taylor and Iyer are considered analogous art because they involve shared playback sessions. Iyer shows a shared viewing experience where the host identifies a particular piece of content to share with other users. Taylor shows that the content may already exist in the queue of the host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer to incorporate the teachings of Taylor wherein receiving data identifying recorded media content in a queue of a client device of a first user, the queue including at least one of the plurality of the recorded media content for playback during the collaborative media experience. Doing so provides that the host would not experience any delay in retrieving the content during the sharing session.
Regarding claim 18, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 4 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 6 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Taylor as applied above, and further in view of Hodge (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0046883).
Regarding claim 2, Iyer in view of Taylor shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Iyer in view of Taylor fails to show
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a plurality of communications from one or more of the other secondary users;
consolidating the plurality of communications; and
sending the consolidated communications to client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience, including the client device of the first user, the client device of the first secondary user and the one or more other client devices.
Hodge shows
receiving a plurality of communications (i.e. audio data/text messages) from one or more of the other secondary users; (i.e. users in gaming session) ([0033]; [0085])
consolidating (i.e. mixing) the plurality of communications; and ([0034]; [0085])
sending the consolidated communications (i.e. conversation) to client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience, (i.e. competitive or cooperative game session) including the client device of the first user, the client device of the first secondary user and the one or more other client devices. ([0034]; [0085])
Hodge and Iyer in view of Taylor are considered analogous art because they involve a collaborative media experience that includes exchange of communications between the users. Iyer shows that reactions may be shared between the users. Hodge shows that such communications may include audio as well as text. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer in view of Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Hodge wherein receiving a plurality of communications from one or more of the other secondary users, consolidating the plurality of communications and sending the consolidated communications to client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience, including the client device of the first user, the client device of the first secondary user and the one or more other client devices. Doing so provides for the details on how the communications may be shared.
Regarding claim 5, Iyer in view of Taylor shows all of the features with respect to claim 4. However, Iyer in view of Taylor fails to show
The method of claim 4, further comprising:
combining the live commentary from two or more of the one or more users; and
transmitting the combined live commentary to the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience with a conference service executing on the multi-media platform.
Hodge shows
combining the live commentary (i.e. audio data/text messages) from two or more of the one or more users; (i.e. users in gaming session) and ([0033]; [0085])
transmitting the combined live commentary (i.e. conversation) to the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience (i.e. competitive or cooperative game session) with a conference service (i.e. chat server) executing on the multi-media platform. (i.e. video game server) ([0034]; [0085]; Fig. 2)
Hodge and Iyer in view of Taylor are considered analogous art because they involve a collaborative media experience that includes exchange of communications between the users. Iyer shows that reactions may be shared between the users. Hodge shows that such communications may include audio as well as text. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer in view of Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Hodge wherein combining the live commentary from two or more of the one or more users and transmitting the combined live commentary to the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience with a conference service executing on the multi-media platform. Doing so provides for the details on how the communications may be shared.
Regarding claim 9, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 12, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge as applied above, and further in view of Barvo et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0352359), hereinafter Barvo.
Regarding claim 3, Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge shows all of the features with respect to claim 2 as detailed above. Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge further shows
The method of claim 2, wherein consolidating the plurality of communications comprises aggregating the received plurality of communications (Hodge: ([0085])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer in view of Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Hodge wherein consolidating the plurality of communications comprises aggregating the received plurality of communications into a conversation for the same motivation as detailed above in claim 2.
However, Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge fails to show
wherein consolidating the plurality of communications comprises aggregating the received plurality of communications and contextual data associated with the received plurality of communications into a conversation; and
wherein sending the consolidated communications comprises sending the conversation to a consolidated communication user interface presented at the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience.
Barvo shows
wherein consolidating the plurality of communications comprises aggregating the received plurality of communications and contextual data (i.e. picture of user contributing a message) associated with the received plurality of communications into a conversation; (i.e. message thread) and (Fig. 10; [0108-0109])
wherein sending the consolidated communication comprises sending the conversation to a consolidated communication user interface (Fig. 10, 1006; i.e. messaging interface) presented at the client devices (i.e. participant devices) that are part of the collaborative media experience. (i.e. co-watching digital video) (Fig. 10; [0108-0109])
Barvo and Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge are considered analogous art because they involve conversing in a media experience. Hodge shows that conversation may be created and sent to the participants. Barvo shows where and how the conversation may be presented to the participant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iyer in view of Taylor in view of Hodge to incorporate the teachings of Barvo wherein sending the consolidated communications comprises sending the conversation to a consolidated communication user interface presented at the client devices that are part of the collaborative media experience. Doing so provides for a interface for viewing the conversation.
Regarding claim 10, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newton et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0159049) shows communal viewing of video content including sharing of social media content.
Siddique et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0352303) shows synchronized video playback and text chat between multiple participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451