Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the Mattingly reference does not teach that a remote server streams content synchronously to multiple devices. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. The whole Mattingly reference is about streaming content in synchrony (paragraph 31-32, 37, 44-45).
Applicant argues that Mattingly does not teach controlling the commentary. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. After a careful read of the Mattingly reference this limitation is also taught by Mattingly. Since Mattingly teaches that the commentary and be control the same way as the playback of the content (paragraph 31 and 57).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 12,224,875 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 9,838,208 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 8,949,333 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mattingly et al., US 2010/0306655.
Regarding claim 1, Mattingly discloses a computer-implemented method of sharing an interactive experience, comprising:
streaming a video event to a plurality of user devices (paragraph 30);
receiving a plurality of commentary from at least one of the plurality of user devices (paragraph 39); and
providing, with the streaming, at least one of the plurality of commentary to the plurality of user devices (paragraph 39),
wherein a first user device of the plurality of user devices is configured to control the plurality of commentary received from the at least one user device of the plurality of user devices viewed on the first user device of the plurality of user devices (paragraph 31 and 57).
Regarding claim 2, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the streaming the video event further comprises streaming the video event from a server to the plurality of user devices that are remote from the server, wherein the streaming from the server to the plurality of the user devices occurs synchronously on two or more user devices of the plurality of user devices (Mattingly paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of commentary includes at least one of video and audio (Mattingly paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 7, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, on a server, a list of one or more user devices to which the video event should be streamed (Mattingly paragraph 30 and 73).
Regarding claim 8, Mattingly discloses a computer-implemented method of sharing an interactive experience, comprising:
streaming, from a first server, a video event to a plurality of user devices (paragraph 30);
receiving a plurality of commentary from at least one of the plurality of user devices (paragraph 23, 39); and
providing, with the streaming, at least one of the plurality of commentary to the plurality of user devices (Paragraph 39),
wherein a first user device of the plurality of user devices creates a list of user devices to which to stream the video event (paragraph 30 and 73);
wherein streaming the video event further comprises streaming the video event from a server to the plurality of user devices that are remote from the server, wherein the streaming to the plurality of user devices occurs synchronously, such that a playback timing of the streaming video event occurs at a same time on the plurality of user devices (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 12, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 8, comprising receiving, at a second server, the plurality of commentaries and wherein the plurality of commentary includes at least one of video and audio (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 13, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 8, further comprising receiving, over a network, the list of the one or more user devices to stream the video event to (paragraph 30 and 73).
Regarding claim 14, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 8, further comprising receiving, at the first server, the list of the one or more user devices to which to stream the video event (paragraph 30 and 73).
Regarding claim 15, Mattingly discloses a system for sharing an interactive experience, comprising:
a first server configured to stream a video event to a plurality of user devices remote from the server and provide, with the streaming, a plurality of commentary to the plurality of user devices (figure1, paragraph 25-31),
a second server configured to receive the plurality of commentary from one or more user devices of the plurality of user devices and to provide the plurality of commentary to the first server (figure1, paragraph 25-31), and
wherein at least one of the plurality of user devices is configured to control the plurality of commentary received from the one or more user devices and viewed on the at least one user device (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 16, Mattingly discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein the streaming to the plurality of user devices occurs synchronously, such that a playback timing of the streaming video event occurs at a same time on two or more of the plurality of user devices (Mattingly paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 19, Mattingly discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of commentary includes at least one of video and audio (Mattingly paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 20, Mattingly discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein the at least one of the plurality of user devices is configured to store a list of user devices previously streamed to (Mattingly paragraph 30 and 73).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Ackerman et al., US 2010/0037151.
Regarding claim 3, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly is silent about sending a notification to the first user device of the plurality of user devices that the plurality of commentary from the at least one user device of the plurality of user devices is being provided with the streaming.
In an analogous art, Ackerman discloses sending a notification to the first user device of the plurality of user devices that the plurality of commentary from the at least one user device of the plurality of user devices is being provided with the streaming (paragraph 68 and 129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Mattingly’s method with the teachings of Ackerman. The motivation would have been to let the host know who is speaking for the benefit of implementing security features.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Mattingly and Ackerman disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein the notification comprises a text message or email (Mattingly paragraph 39-40; Ackerman paragraph 2).
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Clowes et al., US 2009/0286604.
Regarding claim 6, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly is silent about wherein the first user device of the plurality of user devices is configured to block at least one of the plurality of commentary from being viewed on the first user device.
In an analogous art, Clowes discloses wherein the first user device of the plurality of user devices is configured to block at least one of the plurality of commentary from being viewed on the first user device (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Mattingly’s method with the teachings of Clowes. The motivation would have been to enjoy an uninterrupted media for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Ackerman.
Regarding claim 10, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 8.
Mattingly is silent about sending a notification to another user device of the plurality of user devices that commentary from one or more user devices of the plurality of user devices is being added to the streaming.
In an analogous art, Ackerman discloses sending a notification to another user device of the plurality of user devices that commentary from one or more user devices of the plurality of user devices is being added to the streaming (paragraph 68 and 129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Mattingly’s method with the teachings of Ackerman. The motivation would have been to let the host know who is speaking for the benefit of implementing security features.
Regarding claim 11, Mattingly and Ackerman disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the sending a notification comprises sending a text message or email to the another user device of the plurality of user devices (Mattingly col. 6, lines 9-15; Ackerman paragraph 2).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights