Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-3, 7-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly et al., US 2010/0306655 in view of Carrasco et al, US 2013/0103814.
Regarding claim 1, Mattingly discloses a computer-implemented method for sharing an interactive experience, comprising:
streaming a video event to a plurality of user devices, including a first user device (paragraph 30);
receiving a plurality of commentary from at least one of the plurality of user devices (paragraph 39);
providing, with the streaming, at least one of the plurality of commentary to the plurality of user devices (paragraph 39).
Mattingly is silent about categorizing, by the user device, the plurality of commentary.
In an analogous art, Carrasco discloses categorizing, by the user device, 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, further comprising blocking a commentary from a second user device from being included with the video event being streamed (Carrasco paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 3, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein streaming the video event further comprises streaming the video event from a server to the plurality of user devices which are remotely located from the server, wherein the streaming to the plurality of the user devices occurs synchronously (Mattingly paragraph 21; Carrasco paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 7, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving a list of one or more user devices to stream the video event to (Mattingly paragraph 30; Carrasco paragraph 10 and 21).
Regarding claim 8, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a list of one or more user devices to stream the video event to (Mattingly paragraph 30; Carrasco paragraph 21, 47, 67, 79 and 81).
Regarding claim 9, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the video event is a live event occurring during the streaming (Mattingly paragraph 21; Carrasco paragraph 21, 47, 67, 79 and 81).
.
Regarding claim 12, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first user device stores a list of user devices previously streamed to (Mattingly paragraph 21; Carrasco paragraph 21, 47, 67, 79 and 81).
Regarding claim 13, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein streaming the video event to the plurality of user devices comprises playing back the plurality of commentary simultaneously while streaming the video event, the video event comprising a timecode for synchronizing a timing of the commentary with a timing of the video event (Carrasco paragraph 12, 47-48 and 62).
Regarding claim 14, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein providing, with the streaming, at least one of the plurality of commentary comprises providing at least one commentary of the plurality of commentary in association with a video frame in which the at least one commentary was made (Carrasco paragraph 12, 47-48 and 62).
Regarding claim 15, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising sharing the video event asynchronously by recording and subsequently playing back the recorded video event (Carrasco paragraph 19 and 73).
Regarding claim 16, Mattingly discloses a system of sharing an interactive experience, comprising:
a 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 (paragraph 30 and 39);
wherein the plurality of commentary is transmitted from at least one of the plurality of user devices (paragraph 30 and 39).
Mattingly is silent about a first user device of the plurality of user devices configured to categorize the plurality of commentary,
In an analogous art, Carrasco discloses a first user device of the plurality of user devices configured to categorize 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 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 17, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the system according to claim 16, wherein categorizing the plurality of commentary further comprises selecting for a set of commentary, by the first user device, a first subset to be received with a first set of settings and a second subset to be received with a second set of settings, wherein the first set of settings are different than the second set of settings (Carrasco paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 18, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the system according to claim 16, wherein the server is configured to stream the video event to the plurality of user devices by playing back the plurality of commentary simultaneously while streaming the video event, the video event comprising a timecode for synchronizing a timing of the commentary with a timing of the video event (Carrasco paragraph 12, 47-48 and 62).
Regarding claim 19, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the system according to claim 16, wherein the server is configured to provide at least one of the plurality of commentary in association with a video frame in which the at least one commentary was made (Carrasco paragraph 12, 47-48 and 62).
Regarding claim 20, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the system according to claim 16, wherein the server is configured to share the video event asynchronously by recording and subsequently playing back the recorded video event (Carrasco paragraph 19 and 73).
Claims 4-5 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 4, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly and Carrasco are silent about sending a notification to the first user device that commentary from a second user device is being provided with the streaming.
In an analogous art, Ackerman discloses sending a notification to the first user device that commentary from a second user device 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.
Regarding claim 5, Mattingly, Carrasco and Ackerman disclose the method according to claim 4, 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Carrasco in view of Carlsgaard et al., US 2009/0089828.
Regarding claim 6, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly and Carrasco are silent about blocking a category of commentary of the plurality of commentary from being provided with the streaming.
In an analogous art, Carlsgaard discloses blocking a category of commentary of the plurality of commentary from being provided with the streaming (paragraph 15-19 and 22-25).
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 Carlsgaard. The motivation would have been to implement parental control features for the benefit of avoiding displaying sexually explicit media to children.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Mattingly in view of Carrasco in view of Roberts et al., US 2011/0113332.
Regarding claim 10, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 1.
Mattingly and Carrasco are silent about categorizing the plurality of commentary by rating, by the first user device, at least one of the plurality of commentary provided with the streaming.
In an analogous art, Roberts discloses categorizing the plurality of commentary by rating, by the first user device, at least one of the plurality of commentary provided with the streaming (paragraph 52, 55 and 58).
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 Roberts. The motivation would have been to implement parental control features for the benefit of avoiding displaying sexually explicit media to children.
Regarding claim 11, Mattingly and Carrasco disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the categorizing the plurality of commentary further comprises selecting for a set of commentary, by the first user device, a first subset to be received with a first set of settings and a second subset to be received with a second set of settings, wherein the first set of settings are different than the second set of settings (Carrasco paragraph 80).
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