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 .
Objections to the claims
Claims 14-17 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.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose transmit the request to a media cast controller operating as the primary controller, wherein the
media cast controller operating as the primary controller receives the transmitted request and
generates an acceptance in response thereto; receive the acceptance from the media cast controller operating as a primary controller.
However, Leary et al show in fig.1 to fig.4 a system with conflict resolution module 240 for resolving issues associated with priorities levels associated with users and to provide authorization or acceptance to other controllers with lower priorities to alter or override priority levels in order to operate as controller having the highest priority as disclosed in para. 0014; 0022;0028-0030.
And Lee et al disclose a system being able to change or switch the role or the function of the second controller to a new master controller based on acceptance response being received from that second controller as disclosed in para.0025-0027; 0123; 0141. This action is made final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3; 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon(US.Pub.No.20190060742) in view of Colsey(US.Pub.No.20100103316) and Leary(US.Pub.No.20160044359) and Lee(US.Pub.No.20140371880).
Regarding claim 1, Moon et al disclose a media cast controller(see fig.19-fig.20; fig.22 with a first controller) comprising a communication interface(see fig.19-fig.20; fig.22 with BLE connection) arranged to establish a connection with a media set(see fig.19-fig.20; fig.22 with electronic device 1901; 2001; 2210)and a controller( see fig.19-fig.20; fig.22 with a second controller) configured to: connect with the media set( see fig.19-fig.20; fig.22 with electronic device 1901; 2001; 2210);
determine a user status and a command set of the media cast controller(the system is able to identify priority associated with users;0036;0184), and if the media cast controller is the first to connect, the media cast controller becomes a primary controller wherein a primary controller is enabled to execute a primary command set being the command set of the media cast controller(the system has the capability to identify controller having the highest priority in order to allow that controller to send command to the electronic device;0185-0186).
and if the media cast controller is not the first to connect, the media cast controller becomes a secondary controller(see fig.18-fig.20; fig.22 where controllers can manage the electronic device based on priority associated with them; 0185-0186).
But did not explicitly disclose wherein a secondary controller is enabled to execute a secondary command set being the command set of the media cast controller , wherein the primary command set comprises the secondary command set in addition to fundamental commands; generate a request to perform a higher-level command not included in the command set of the media cast controller, wherein the higher-level command comprises a fundamental command, and transmit the request to a media cast controller operating as the primary controller; wherein the media cast controller operating as the primary controller receives the transmitted request and generates an acceptance in response thereto; receive the acceptance from the media cast controller operating as a primary controller; and based on the received acceptance, execute the higher-level command.
However, Leary et al disclose generate a request to perform a higher-level command not included in the command set of the media cast controller( the system provides options to set priority levels for specific users and these priority levels can be adjusted or altered as needed and the users can send requests for contents being above their subscription level; their priority level and their parental control setting, 0022; 0029), and transmit the request to a media cast controller operating as the primary controller(see fig.1 to fig.4 with conflict resolution module 240 for resolving issues associated with priorities levels associated with users; 0014; 0022;0028-0030); receive an acceptance from the media cast controller operating as a primary controller; and based on the received acceptance, execute the higher-level command(see fig.1 to fig.4 for allowing the conflict resolution module 240 to provide authorization or acceptance to other controllers with lower priorities to alter or override priority levels in order to operate as controller having the highest priority; 0028-0030; 0022).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Leary to modify Moon by providing options to override priority levels technique of Leary to the system of Moon resulting in “generate a request to perform a higher-level command not included in the command set of the media cast controller and transmit the request to a media cast controller operating as the primary controller; receive an acceptance from the media cast controller operating as a primary controller; and based on the received acceptance, execute the higher-level command” for the purpose of managing execution of command being received accordingly.
And Colsey et al disclose wherein a secondary controller is enabled to execute a secondary command set being the command set of the media cast controller(see fig.1 to fig.3 for limiting privileges to a controller having default priority with respect to other controllers having highest priorities; 0034; 0031), wherein the primary command set comprises the secondary command set in addition to fundamental commands; wherein the higher-level command comprises a fundamental command(see fig.1 to fig.3 for allowing multiple controllers or remote controls to be paired to a display device concurrently and where users having highest priorities can execute basic command as paused or stopped or increase or decrease volume of a video content and all other commands as changing programming and accessing premium services and services can be accessed according to parental controls; 0017; 0024; 0026; 0037-0039; 0047; 0034; 0031;0019;0029).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Colsey to modify Moon and Leary by applying command restriction of Colsey to Moon for the purpose of managing the operation and access of media asset accordingly.
And Lee et al disclose wherein the media cast controller operating as the primary controller receives the transmitted request and generates an acceptance in response thereto(the system is able to change or switch the role or the function of the second controller to a new master controller based on acceptance response being received from that second controller, 0025-0027; 0123; 0141).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify Moon and Leary and Colsey by providing options to receive acceptance message to switch or change to function or role of master controller for the purpose of managing priority associated with controllers accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Moon et al disclose wherein the controller is further configured, if the media cast controller is not the first to connect to determine( see fig.18-fig.20; fig.22 where controllers can manage the electronic device based on priority associated with them; 0185-0186), whether a priority of the user of the media cast controller is higher than a priority of a primary controller(the system has the capability to identify controller having the highest priority in order to allow that controller to send command to the electronic device;0185-0186), and if so the media cast controller becomes the primary controller(0185-0186; 0036;0187).
Regarding claim 3, Moon and Colsey and Leary et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to receive an acceptance from a user in association with the media cast controller becoming the primary controller.
However, Lee et al disclose wherein the controller is further configured to receive an acceptance from a user in association with the media cast controller becoming the primary controller(see fig.1 to fig.7 for allowing controllers to switch roles; 0020; 0025-0027;0123).
.
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify Moon and Colsey and Leary for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Moon and Colsey and Leary did not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to generate a message to change roles ; transmit the message to change roles to the media cast controller operating as a secondary controller; whereby the media cast controller operating as a secondary controller becomes the primary controller.
However, Lee et al disclose wherein the controller is further configured to generate a message to change roles ; transmit the message to change roles to the media cast controller operating as a secondary controller; whereby the media cast controller operating as a secondary controller becomes the primary controller(see fig.1 to fig.7 for allowing controllers to switch roles; 0020; 0025-0027;0123;0043;0068-0069).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify Moon and Colsey and Leary for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Moon and Leary and Lee et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the media cast controller is a smartphone or a tablet computer.
However, Colsey et al disclose wherein the media cast controller is a smartphone or a tablet computer(see fig.1 and fig.2 with smartphones;0021;0027;0035;0046-0047).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Colsey to modify Moon and Leary and Lee by applying command restriction of Colsey to Moon for the purpose of managing the operation and access of media asset accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights