Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,224,875.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-16 in that claims 1-16 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,838,208.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-20 in that claims 1-20 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 8,949,333.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-19 in that claims 1-19 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
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 8-9 and 12-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mattingly et al., US 2010/0306655.
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 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).
Regarding claim 9, Mattingly discloses the method according to claim 8, 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).
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).
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 1-2, 5, 7, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Carrasco et al, US 2013/0103814.
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 playback 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).
Mattingly is silent about a user controlling the plurality of commentary.
In an analogous art, Carrasco discloses a user controlling the plurality of commentary (paragraph 17, 19 and 80).
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 Carrasco. The motivation would have been to manage the displayed comments for the benefit of implementing parental control features.
Regarding claim 2, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose 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; Carrasco paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 5, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose 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 and Carrasco disclose 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; Carrasco paragraph 21, 47, 67, 79 and 81).
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 (figure1, paragraph 25-31), and
wherein at least one of the plurality of user devices is configured to control the playback received from the one or more user devices and viewed on the at least one user device (paragraph 31).
Mattingly is silent about and provide the plurality of commentary to the first server and a user controlling the plurality of commentary.
In an analogous art, Carrasco discloses provide the plurality of commentary from a server to another to another server and a user controlling the plurality of commentary (abstract paragraph 8, 17, 19 and 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Mattingly’s system with the teachings of Carrasco. The motivation would have been to manage the displayed comments for the benefit of implementing parental control features.
Regarding claim 16, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose 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; Carrasco paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 19, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose 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 and Carrasco disclose 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).
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Carrasco in view of Ackerman et al., US 2010/0037151.
Regarding claim 3, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly and Carrasco are 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 and Carrasco’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, Carrasco and Ackerman disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein the notification comprises a text message or email (Mattingly col. 6, lines 9-15; Carrasco paragraph 19, 48 and 64; 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 Carrasco in view of Clowes et al., US 2009/0286604.
Regarding claim 6, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first user device of the plurality of user devices is configured to block at least one of the plurality of commentary (Carrasco paragraph 80)from being viewed on the first user device.
Mattingly and Carrasco are silent about not displaying 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, Clowes discloses not displaying the plurality of commentary from the at least one user device of the plurality of user devices is being provided with the streaming (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Mattingly and Carrasco’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