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 .
This action is in response to application 19/282,355 filed 7/28/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has determined that an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not warranted because the instant claims are patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,849. The instant claims include limitations directed to determining that a reaction lacks sufficient information to identify an object, presenting a saved query associated with the reaction and the media content for object identification, receiving an identification of an object from a plurality of objects, querying a database for supplemental content using the identified object, and presenting a selected supplemental content item based on the querying, which are not cited by the parent claims.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al., Pub No US 2022/0398279 (hereafter Aher) in view of Brandon Grusd, Pub No US 2016/0234568 (hereafter Grusd) and further in view of Nadejda Sarmova, Pub No US 2017/0208103 (hereafter Sarmova).
Regarding Claim 1, Aher discloses a method comprising:
displaying, at a first computing device and a second computing device, a portion of a media content item comprising a plurality of objects [paras.0026, 0033, 0035, 0075-0076: Discloses displaying a media asset on a first device while causing a snapshot (portion of the media asset depicting multiple objects) to be displayed on a second device. The snapshot includes a first object and a second object (e.g., actors 102 and 104). Aher teaches this limitation because the same media content is concurrently presented on a first device and, via a captured snapshot, on a second device for user interaction.];
determining that a reaction for the portion of the media content item received from the first computing device satisfies a trigger condition [paras.0069-0071: Discloses determining whether a received user query relates to the currently playing media asset. When the query is determined to relate to the media asset, the control circuitry proceeds with object identification and disambiguation. Aher teaches this limitation because determining that the received reaction relates to the displayed media satisfies the trigger condition for initiating the subsequent object-identification process.];
based at least in part on determining that the reaction satisfies the trigger condition:
determining that the reaction lacks sufficient information to identify an object from the plurality of objects displayed in the portion of the media content item [paras.0032, 0077: Discloses determining that the received query is ambiguous as to whether it relates to the first object or the second object depicted in the snapshot. Aher teaches this limitation because the ambiguity determination indicates the user input lacks sufficient information to identify which object in the displayer media is intended.];
presenting a saved query associated with the reaction and the portion of the media content item to the first computing device for object identification [paras.0033, 0035, 0078: Discloses generating for simultaneous output a snapshot together with a disambiguating query associated with the current media scene and presenting them to the user for identifying the intended object. Aher teaches this limitation because the disambiguating query is presented together with the captured snapshot corresponding to the media portion so the user can identify the desired object.];
receiving an identification, from the first computing device of a first object, from the plurality of objects [paras.0034, 0079-0080: Discloses receiving a confirmatory replay identifying the intended actor/object (e.g., actor 102), and generating the response based on that replay. Aher teaches this limitation because the user identifies one object from the multiple displayed objects, and the system receives that identification before responding to the original query.];
Aher does not explicitly disclose querying a database for supplemental content using the identified first object; and presenting a selected supplemental content item based on the querying. However, in analogous art, Grusd discloses the following:
querying a database for supplemental content using the identified first object [paras.0065, 0067, 0101: Discloses that when the user selects an identified object, information stored within the video object database and monetization engine is retrieved and displayed, and further discloses searching the tagged-object database using the selected object/search term. Grusd teaches this limitation because the identified object is used to retrieve associated information from the database.]; and
presenting a selected supplemental content item based on the querying [paras.0101, 0111, 0115: Discloses displaying the information linked to the selected object on the electronic screen, including links to websites selling the object, advertisements, and other associated information. Grusd teaches this limitation because the supplemental content retrieved from the database is presented to the user in response to the object selection.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Aher to querying a database for supplemental content using the identified first object, and presenting a selected supplemental content item based on the querying, as taught by Grusd, in order to provide the user with a richer content experience by presenting information, advertisements, or purchasing opportunities associated with the identified object, thereby predictably improving user interaction with the media content [Grusd: paras.0003-0004].
The combined teachings of Aher and Grusd do not explicitly disclose displaying, at a first computing device and a second computing device joined together in a group session, a portion of a media content item comprising a plurality of objects (emphasis added to distinguish the elements not taught by the combination); However, in analogous art, Sarmova discloses displaying media content at a first device and a second device joined together in a virtual shared experience by receiving an invitation, receiving and acceptance, synchronizing playback between the devices, and establishing a communications connection between the devices, whereby remote users consume the media content together as if in the same room [paras.0026-0033, FIGs.3-4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Aher and Grusd to display the media content at a first computing device and a second computing device joined together in a group session, as taught by Grusd, in order to enable geographically separated users to jointly consume synchronized media content while interacting with one another during playback, thereby predictably providing a virtual shared viewing experience that recreates traditional group media consumption for remote users [Sarmova, paras.0002-0005, 0026-0033].
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, and Sarmova further discloses further comprising, initiating, between the first computing device and the second computing device, the group session for consuming the media content item [paras.0026-0033, FIGs.3-4: Discloses receiving an invitation from a first device, sending the invitation to one or more additional devices, receiving an acceptance from the one or more additional devices, synchronizing media playback between the devices, and establishing a communications connection between the devices. Sarmova teaches this limitation because the invitation, acceptance, synchronization, and communications connection initiate a virtual shared viewing session in which the first computing device are joined together for consuming the media content item.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, and Aher further discloses further comprising:
capturing the reaction of a first user for the displayed portion of the media content item [paras.0069-0071: Discloses receiving a user query while a media asset is being displayed and determining whether the received query relates to the currently playing media asset. Aher teaches this limitation because the user query is a reaction captured from the first user in response to the displayed portion of the media content item.]; and
comparing the captured reaction to the trigger condition associated with the displayed portion of the media content item to determine whether the captured reaction satisfies the trigger condition [paras.0069-0071: Discloses determining whether the received query relates to the currently playing media asset and, when it does, proceeding with object identification and disambiguation. Aher teaches this because the received user reaction is compared against the trigger condition associated with the displayed media content item to determine whether the reaction satisfies the trigger condition.].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, and Sarmova further discloses wherein the reaction is based at least in part on a communication transmitted from a first user associated with the first computing device associated with the first computing device to a second user associated with the second computing device [paras.0030-0033: Discloses establishing a communications channel between the first device and the second device after synchronizing playback, wherein the communications channel enables users of the different devices to communicate with each other during playback by transmitting textual messages, audio messages, or video communications. Sarmova teaches this limitation because the reaction may be based on a communication transmitted from a first user associated with the first computing device to a second user associated with the second computing device during the shared media session.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the saved query and the portion of the media content item is presented to the first computing device after the group session [Sarmova – paras.0004, 0013: Discloses that commentary is saved and associated with a specific portion of the media, and presented to users while consuming the media content during the shared viewing experience. Sarmova teaches this limitation because the saved commentary associated with a particular media portion is presented to participating users after it has been created during the shared viewing session.]; and
transmitting a prompt to the first computing device to select an object from the plurality of objects in the portion of the media content item [Grusd – paras.0069-0070: Discloses presenting viewer controls that allow a user to click on an item in the video or use a search bar to locate a tagged item, and then navigate to the frame containing that object for selection. Grusd teaches this limitation because the user interface prompts the user to select an object depicted in the displayed media content.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, and Grusd further discloses further comprising, segmenting the first object from the plurality of objects in the portion of the media content item using a computer vision algorithm [paras.0057, 0087, 0095: Discloses drawing a region of interest around an object, computer vision including object segmentation, and segmenting objects in each frame for recognition. Grusd teaches this limitation because the computer vision algorithms segment an object from other objects within the video frame for subsequent recognition.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 9, and Grusd further discloses further comprising using the segmented first object to query the database for the supplemental content item [paras.0065-0066, 0092: Discloses selecting an identified/tagged object, retrieving associated information from a tagged-object database, and presenting supplemental content including URLs, advertisements, vendor information, product information, and other associated information related to the selected object. Grusd teaches this limitation because the segmented/identified object is used as the query key to retrieve supplemental content associated with that object from the database.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of claim 1, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 11. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 11 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 2. Claim 12 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 2, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 12. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 12 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 3. Claim 13 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 3, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 13. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 13 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 4. Claim 14 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 4, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 14. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 14 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 8. Claim 18 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 8, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 18. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 18 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 9. Claim 19 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 9, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 19. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 19 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 10. Claim 20 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 10, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 20. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 20 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 10.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al., Pub No US 2022/0398279 (hereafter Aher) in view of Brandon Grusd, Pub No US 2016/0234568 (hereafter Grusd) and further in view of Nadejda Sarmova, Pub No US 2017/0208103 (hereafter Sarmova) and further in view of CHUN et al., Pub No US 2016/0364008 (hereafter CHUN).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova do not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction is based at least in part on a facial expression of a first user associated with the first computing device while consuming the portion of the media content item. However, in analogous art, CHUN discloses that wearable smart glasses may recognize a user’s facial expressions and process the recognized facial expressions as user commands [para.0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova to base the reaction, at least in part, on a facial expression of the first user, as taught by CHUN, in order to provide an additional natural, hands-free mechanism for detecting a user’s reaction while consuming media content, thereby predictably improving the system’s ability to detect and interpret user reactions [CHUN, para.0004].
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova do not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction is based at least in part on a gesture of a first user associated with the first computing device while consuming the portion of the media content item. However, in analogous art, CHUN discloses wearable smart glasses configured to recognize a user’s hand gesture and generate a command corresponding to the recognized hand gesture [FIG.1, para.0010, 0014, 0018, 0032-0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova to base the reaction, at least in part, on a hand gesture of the first user, as taught by CHUN, in order to provide an additional natural, hands-free mechanism for detecting a user’s reaction while consuming media content, thereby predictably improving the system’s ability to detect and interpret user reactions [CHUN, para.0010].
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova do not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction is based at least in part on input from a wearable computing device of a first user associated with the first computing device while consuming the portion of the media content item. However, in analogous art, CHUN discloses wearable smart glasses configured to capture user input in the form of a hand gesture, recognize the hand gesture, and generate a corresponding command [FIG.1, para.0010, 0014, 0018, 0032-0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova to base the reaction, at least in part, on input from a wearable computing device associated with the first user, as taught by CHUN, in order to provide an additional natural, hands-free mechanism for detecting a user’s reaction while consuming media content, thereby predictably improving the system’s ability to detect and interpret user reactions [CHUN, para.0004].
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 5. Claim 15 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 5, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 15. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 15 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 6. Claim 16 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 6, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 16. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 16 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Grusd and further in view of Sarmova for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 7. Claim 17 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 7, with Aher’s control circuitry (Fig.8, element 811; paras.0063-0064) configured to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 17. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Aher, Grusd, and Sarmova render Claim 17 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BLONG et al., (US 2016/0366203) – Discloses receiving an indication of playback of media content; receiving one or more trigger signals associated with playback of the media content, the one or more trigger signals indicating whether to capture user reaction information associated with the media content; determining, based on the one or more trigger signals, that the user reaction information is to be captured; capturing the user reaction information, including a recording of a user reaction to the media content; linking the user reaction information and the media content to form linked content; and providing and/or storing the linked content [FIG.4, paras.0033-0070].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights