DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 16, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, and 30-31 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1, 10, 14, 21, 23, 27-28 and the cancellation of claims 7, 20, 24, 26, 29 and 32 have been fully considered.
In light of these amendments, the previous objections to claim 27 is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose that the first selection (the device determined based on battery charge) both generates and transmits the text interpretation directly to the “second selection”. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 10, 14, 23, and 28.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how newly added references read on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art fails to disclose upon receiving an indication that a re-evaluation event has occurred, the re-evaluation event comprising at least one of: determining that a timeout period has elapsed… and determining that the text-processing device has generated a text interpretation for a portion of the video comprising at least a predetermined word count: sending an indication to the second selection to operate as the text-processing device; and sending an indication to the first selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the second selection, wherein the timeout period or the predetermined word count is determined based on at least a first device battery charge and a second device battery charge.
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 1-6, 8, 10-19, 21, 23, 25, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0044216 (“McNicoll”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,966,075 (“Forutanpour”).
With respect to claim 1, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A computer-implemented method (see ¶35, describing that the methods described may be software/computer-implemented by software executed by a computer) comprising:
receiving an indication that a first device and a second device are preparing to co-watch a video while displaying a text interpretation of a speech component of the video (see Fig. 8b, ¶¶37-38, 44, 73, 75-76, 78-79, describing receiving an indication, e.g., from a viewer/customer/emcee, of a desired shared viewing session, i.e., to co-watch a video, indicating customers invited to participate in the viewing, e.g., a first device and second device, and that this viewing may include translations/closed captioning, i.e., while displaying a text interpretation of a speech component of the video);
determining a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device … (see citations above, including ¶¶73, 76, describing that one device is determined as the emcee who has control over the viewing experience and that peer to peer communication may be used where once customer is serviced/receives some portion of or all of the content from another customer, i.e., determining a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device); and
… operate as a text-processing device to generate the text interpretation … (see citations with respect to elements above, including ¶¶78-79, describing that the customer device may serve as a text-processing device to generate closed captioning or translations, i.e., the text interpretation).
McNicoll does not explicitly disclose determining a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device based on battery charge associated with the first device and the second device; and sending an indication to the first selection to operate as a text-processing device to generate the text interpretation and transmit the text interpretation to the second selection while co-watching the video.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Forutanpour discloses that it was known to request select a device based on battery charge, send an indication to that selection operate as a text-processing device (generate and transmit the text interpretation to the other devices), i.e.,
determining a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device based on battery charge associated with the first device and the second device; and
sending an indication to the first selection to operate as a text-processing device to generate the text interpretation and transmit the text interpretation to the second selection while co-watching the video (see 8:27-47, 8:55-9:4, 13:40-46, 14:48-55, 17:30-39, 18:15-64, 19:20-23, 19:61-67, 20:24-27, describing that it was known, in a system where multiple viewers are viewing the same content, to select one viewer’s device based on the battery charge associated with that device, and send an indication to that selected device to handle translation services, i.e., operate as a text-processing device – generating the text interpretation/translation, and sending it to the other viewers/devices while co-watching the video).
As detailed above, McNicoll uses each device individually or the server to accomplish translation/captioning/text-processing. However, Forutanpour teaches the benefits of allowing the most efficient device (based on power consumption, processing, and/or battery level) to perform the translation/text-processing services (see 17:30-35, 17:54-18:5, 18:15-64, describing that especially in a co-watching situation where a speaker is speaking in one language and a plurality of listeners prefer a different language, it may be more efficient for one device to handle translation services and provide text to the other devices rather than having each device individually translate; this section also describes that by selecting the device with high battery charge level/available power to do this, it allows the devices with lower battery charge to conserve power). Forutanpour implements this (as described in the section above) by selecting a device based on battery charge level (e.g., through exchanging battery charge information), sending an indication to a particular device to operate as the text-processing device for handling translation services, and transmitting the translation generated by that device to the other devices while watching the video. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would have understood the benefit of using such efficient translation that considers battery level and allows for one device to provide translations to the remaining devices – especially where a large number of viewers prefer the same language translation, as taught by Forutanpour. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for selecting a device based on battery charge level (e.g., through exchanging battery charge information), sending an indication to a particular device to operate as the text-processing device for handling translation services, and transmitting the translation generated by that device to the other devices while watching the video in the co-watching system of McNicoll as taught by Forutanpour.
With respect to claim 2, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein co-watching the video comprises the first and the second device being coordinated to concurrently display a portion of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that two devices may coordinated to display the video in sync/synchronously, i.e., concurrently, from a sharer and watch it together).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
further comprising:
sending an indication to the second selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the first selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, and Forutanpour 18:42-47, describing that the device performing translation may send an indication to the other devices, i.e., to the second selection, to not perform translation but to wait for text to be received from the translation device, i.e., to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the first selection).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the text interpretation is at least one of a translation, a transcription, and a summarization of the speech component (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the text interpretation may be transcription or translation).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein at least one of the first device and the second device is in communication with a head mounted device operable to display the text interpretation on a head mounted device display (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing the first and second device and the display of text interpretations on such devices, Forutanpour Abstract, Fig. 1b, showing and describing that such devices may be head mounted display devices).
McNicoll describes its devices as any capable viewing device that is capable of connecting to the internet, e.g., television, desktop, notebook, computer, etc. (see ¶35). Forutanpour does not indicate that this is an exhaustive list. Forutanpour describes a shared video system that uses AR head-mounted displays/devices. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would have different types of devices that may use shared viewing, including, as taught by Forutanpour, head-mounted AR devices and/or devices connected to an AR viewing device. Moreover, to such a person, using such a device to implement the methods of McNicoll/Forutanpour would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a device connected to a head-mounted display viewing device in the co-watching system of McNicoll as taught by Forutanpour.
With respect to claim 6, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
further comprising:
determining that the first selection is a co-watch host device operable to initiate co-watching the video with the second selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the first selection may be and emcee, i.e., co-watch host device, that may initiate co-watching with the second selection/device).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 8, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
further comprising:
upon receiving an indication that a re-evaluation event has occurred, the re-evaluation event comprising at least one of: determining that a timeout period has elapsed, determining that the first device or the second device are no longer displaying the video, determining that a battery powering the first device or the second device has a charge level below a threshold, and determining that the text-processing device has generated a text interpretation for a portion of the video comprising at least a predetermined word count:
sending an indication to the second selection to operate as the text-processing device; and
sending an indication to the first selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the second selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 above, describing that in the combined system, an indication is sent to the text-processing device to operate as such and an indication may be sent to the non-text-processing device to prepare to receive the text interpretation; see also McNicoll 73, describing that if one device quits or loses connection to the internet, control may pass to another, i.e., upon receiving an indication that a re-evaluation event has occurred, e.g., is no longer displaying video, the processing device in control may be changed).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 10, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an indication that a first device and a second device are preparing to co-watch an event while displaying a text interpretation of a speech component of the event, the first device generating a video of the event with a camera and transmitting the video to the second device for concurrent display during the event (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and McNicoll ¶¶7, 11, 36, 46, 68, describing that the video may be of an event);
determining a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device based on battery charge associated with the first device and the second device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above); and
sending an indication to the first selection to operate as a text-processing device to generate the text interpretation and transmit the text interpretation to the second selection of while co-watching the event (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 10. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
further comprising:
sending an indication to the second selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the first selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 3 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 10. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the text interpretation is at least one of a translation, transcription, and a summarization of the speech component (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 10. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein at least one of the first device and the second device is connected to an augmented reality or virtual reality viewing device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Forutanpour Abstract, Fig. 1B, showing and describing that the devices in such systems may be/may be connected to AR devices).
McNicoll describes its devices as any capable viewing device that is capable of connecting to the internet, e.g., television, desktop, notebook, computer, etc. (see ¶35). Forutanpour does not indicate that this is an exhaustive list. Forutanpour describes a shared video system that uses AR head-mounted displays. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would have different types of devices that may use shared viewing, including, as taught by Forutanpour, AR devices and/or devices connected to an AR viewing device. Moreover, to such a person, using such a device to implement the methods of McNicoll/Forutanpour would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a device connected to an AR viewing device in the co-watching system of McNicoll as taught by Forutanpour.
With respect to claim 14, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
A system, comprising:
a first device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that multiple devices may be included, i.e., including first and second devices);
a second device (see element above); and
a configuration server configured to receive an indication that the first device and the second device are preparing to co-watch a video while displaying a text interpretation of a speech component of the video, determine a first selection and a second selection of the first device and the second device based on battery charge associated with the first device and the second device, and send an indication to the first selection to operate as a text-processing device to generate the text interpretation and transmit the text interpretation to the second selection while co-watching the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and McNicoll Figs. 5a, 6a, items 52, 60, and ¶38, 72-76, which describe a server and/or a device acting in server mode, i.e., configuration servers, for receiving the indication/request for synced/shared watching).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein co-watching the video comprises the first device and the second device being coordinated to concurrently display a portion of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the configuration server is further configured to send an indication to the second selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the first selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 3 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 16.
With respect to claim 17, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the text interpretation is at least one of a translation and a summarization of the speech component (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein at least one of the first device and the second device is in communication with a head mounted device operable to display the text interpretation on a head mounted device display (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the configuration server is further configured to determine that the first selection is a co-watch host device operable to initiate co-watching the video with the second selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 19.
With respect to claim 21, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the configuration server is further configured to receive an indication that a re-evaluation event has occurred, the re-evaluation event comprising at least one of: determining that a timeout period has elapsed, determining that the first device or the second device are no longer displaying the video, determining that a battery powering the first device or the second device has a charge level below a threshold, and determining that the text-processing device has generated a text interpretation for a portion of the video comprising at least a predetermined word count: send an indication to the second selection to operate as the text-processing device, and send an indication to the first selection to prepare to receive the text interpretation from the second selection (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 8 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 21.
With respect to claim 23, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
A computer-implemented method performed on a first device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a portion of a video (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above);
receiving an indication to operate as a text-processing device, wherein the indication is based on a battery charge of the first device and a second device;
processing a speech component of the portion of the video to generate a text interpretation based on the indication (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the text interpretation is a translation of a speech component of the video);
sending the text interpretation to the second device for display with the portion of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above); and
displaying the text interpretation with the portion of the video on the first device, wherein the first device and the second device are coordinated to concurrently display the portion of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 23.
With respect to claim 25, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 23. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the text interpretation is at least one of a translation and a summarization of the speech component (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 25.
With respect to claim 27, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 23. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
further comprising:
sending the text interpretation to a head mounted device operable to display the text interpretation on a head mounted device display (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
A first device, comprising:
a processor configured with instructions to: receive a portion of a video, receive an indication to operate as a text-processing device, wherein the indication is based on a battery charge of the first device and a second device, process a speech component of the portion of the video to generate a text interpretation based on the indication, transmit the text interpretation to a second device for display with the portion of the video, and display the text interpretation with the portion of the video on the first device, wherein the first device and the second device are coordinated to concurrently display the portion of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 23 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 28.
With respect to claim 30, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 28. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the text interpretation is at least one of a translation and a summarization of the speech component (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 30.
With respect to claim 31, McNicoll discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, McNicoll in view of Forutanpour discloses all the elements of independent claim 28. McNicoll/Forutanpour additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured with instructions to send the text interpretation to a head mounted device operable to display the text interpretation on a head mounted device display (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 31.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights