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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 4/3/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 29-25 have been added. Claims 1-16 and 22-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re pages 9-10, the applicant states “Independent claim 1 is patentable over Murray and Clarke because these references fail to disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim 1 including, "based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content." The Office Action points to Clarke at [0097] and [0111] as disclosing this feature. (Office Action, p. 3.) Applicant respectfully disagrees that the relied-upon portions of the applied references disclose or suggest this feature. The relied-upon portions of Clarke describe presenting "supplemental information" or other "features" over media content on a playback device or separately on a paired device, such as a "mobile computing device." (Clarke, [0097] and [0111].) The supplemental information or features may include, for example, the filmography of an individual actor, graphical and/or text content that describe persons or objects appearing in the media, etc. Clarke's "supplemental information" and "features," however, are not presented automatically, as claim 1 recites. For example, Clarke describes that the "user interaction may, for example, be the user operating the playback or paired device requesting additional or supplemental metadata from the metadata source (which may be the media source or the service 120)." (Clarke, [0097] (emphasis added).) As another example, Clarke describes that "the user interaction may be a request to receive (e.g., video on demand, purchase a digital copy, or Blu-ray copy etc.) and/or view additional media content the selected actor(s) is in." (Clarke, [0097] (emphasis added).) Similarly, Clarke at [0111] describes that "[e]mbodiments provide for the features to be selectable by a user" and "in an embodiment the user may select a particular feature by touching the portion of the screen corresponding to the selectable feature." (Clarke, [0111].) Thus, Clarke presents supplemental information and/or features in response to a user interaction, such as a selection or request from a user, not automatically based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, as claim 1 recites. Accordingly, the Office Action fails to point to any portion of the applied references that describe or suggest "based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content," as claim 1 recites. Thus, the relied-upon portions of Murray and Clarke fail to disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim 1 and cannot support a Section 103 rejection of this claim. Therefore, the Section 103 rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Murray teaches the user interface includes a preferred channel control to enable or disable a channel surfing function related to a specific user button of the remote control device. In some implementations, the user interface is configured to prompt a user to enter user account credentials of the user account (e.g., a user account name and password). When the user account name and password are verified, the server system confirms whether the remote control device has been linked to the user account and whether the preferred channel list can be set forth or updated for the remote control device. In some implementations, the user interface further includes selectable information items 708 representing one or more Internet content channels (e.g., Netflix, KQED Radio, Pandora, ESPN, YouTube, and SatelliteTV). The user clicks on a respective selectable square affordance 708 to add a corresponding Internet content channel to or remove it from the preferred channel list associated with the user account. If an interested Internet content channel is not listed on the user interface, the user clicks on an add-more affordance to select the interested Internet content channel from an expanded list of Internet content channels. The interested Internet content channel, once selected from the expanded list, is added to and displayed in the selectable information items of the user interface. (e.g. See, Para.[0112])
Murray is silent about causing a graphical display of the control device to display a user interface (UI) for providing supplemental content; and based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content.
Clarke teaches a series of features are displayed on the interface. Embodiments provide for the features to be selectable by a user. For example, where the paired device is a mobile computing device that includes a touch screen display, and the interface is provided on the touch screen display, in an embodiment the user may select a particular feature by touching the portion of the screen corresponding to the selectable feature. In such embodiments, service can detect selection of the feature and provide supplemental content on the main playback device and/or on the paired device corresponding to the selected feature. The supplemental content may include, for example, information about actors or objects that relate to a description of the selected feature, and the information may be displayed on the paired device. For example, in response to selection of feature, the service may cause content to be displayed on the paired device relating to characters who appear in the scene and/or the graphic of the feature. (e.g. See, Para.[0111]) The features are selected by a user and supplemental content is provided and presented automatically from application or program to the interface. The user doesn’t present or provide supplemental content linked to the feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Murray with the above teachings of Clarke in order to improve user experience with additional information.
Therefore, the combination of Murray and Clarke discloses based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content as recited independent claims.
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 (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 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.
Murray in view of Clarke
Claims 1-11, 13, 14, 22-29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray(USPubN 2018/0310070) in view of Clarke et al.(USPubN 2013/0014155; hereinafter Clarke).
As per claim 1, Murray teaches a method comprising: determining that a control device is in proximity to a video playback device, wherein the control device is separate from the video playback device(Para.[0042], Fig. 2);
causing a graphical display of the control device to display a user interface for receiving a selection of one or more media services(Para.[0111], [0112], Fig. 7);
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of one or more media services(Para.[0112]);
sending, via the control device to the video playback device, account information for connecting to the selected one or more media services(Para.[0112]);
causing a graphical display of the control device to display a user interface (UI) for providing media content(Para.[0128], Fig. 11).
Murray is silent about causing a graphical display of the control device to display a user interface (UI) for providing supplemental content; and based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content.
Clarke teaches causing a graphical display of the control device to display a user interface (UI) for providing supplemental content; and based at least in part on media content being played back via the video playback device, automatically presenting, via the user interface for providing supplemental content, supplemental content associated with the media content(Para.[0097], [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Murray with the above teachings of Clarke in order to improve user experience with additional information.
As per claim 2, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray is silent about wherein the supplemental content comprises one or more of: suggested additional media content; review data associated with the media content; or production information associated with the media content.
Clarke teaches wherein the supplemental content comprises one or more of: suggested additional media content; review data associated with the media content; or production information associated with the media content(Para.[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Murray with the above teachings of Clarke in order to improve user experience with additional information.
As per claim 3, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein the video playback device comprises a stationary display device, and wherein the control device comprises a mobile device(Para.[0049], Fig. 2).
As per claim 4, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein the video playback device comprises a video source device communicatively coupled to a display component(Para.[0034], Fig. 2).
As per claim 5, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 4.
Murray teaches wherein the display component comprises at least one of a display screen or a projector(Para.[0035]).
As per claim 6, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein the video playback device comprises an integrated display component(Para.[0034]).
As per claim 7, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 6.
Murray teaches wherein the integrated display component comprises at least one of a display screen or a projector(Para.[0035]).
As per claim 8, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein the control device comprises a smartphone, a tablet, or a wearable device(Para.[0041]).
As per claim 9, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein determining that the control device is in proximity to the video playback device comprises determining that the control device and the video playback device are communicatively coupled over a common local area network(Para.[0040]).
As per claim 10, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein determining that the control device in proximity to the video playback device comprises direct wireless communication between the control device and the video playback device(Para.[0042]).
As per claim 11, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 10.
Murray teaches wherein the direct wireless communication comprises one or more of a Bluetooth link, an ultra-wideband (UWB) link, or a near-field communication (NFC) link(Para.[0038], [0040]).
As per claim 13, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein determining that the control device is in proximity to the video playback device comprises emitting an acoustic signal from the video playback device and detecting the acoustic signal via one or more microphones of the control device(Para.[0036], [0050], [0053]).
As per claim 14, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray teaches wherein determining that the control device is in proximity to the video playback device comprises emitting an acoustic signal from the control device and detecting the acoustic signal via one or more microphones of the video playback device(Para.[0036], [0050], [0053]).
As per claim 24, Murray teaches tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a video playback device or control device(Para.[0009]) and other limitations in the claim 24 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 25, the limitations in the claim 25 has been discussed in the rejection claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 26, the limitations in the claim 26 has been discussed in the rejection claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 27, the limitations in the claim 27 has been discussed in the rejection claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 28, the limitations in the claim 28 has been discussed in the rejection claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 29, the limitations in the claim 29 has been discussed in the rejection claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 32, Murray teaches a computing system, comprising: a network interface; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that cause the computing system (Para.[0009]) and other limitations in the claim 32 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 33, the limitations in the claim 33 has been discussed in the rejection claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 24.
Murray teaches a video playback device comprising: one or more processors; a computer-readable memory and: at least one of: an integrated display component; a separate and discrete display component to which the video playback device is communicatively coupled(Para.[0009]-[0012]).
As per claim 23, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 24.
Murray teaches a control device comprising: one ore more processors; a computer-readable memory; and at least one of a display component or a user interface component(Para.[0009]-[0012]).
Murray in view of Clarke and Volk
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray(USPubN 2018/0310070) in view of Clarke et al.(USPubN 2013/0014155; hereinafter Clarke) further in view of Volk et al.(USPubN 2022/0217434; hereinafter Volk)
As per claim 12, Murray and Clarke teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Murray and Clarke are silent about wherein determining that the control device is in proximity to the video playback device comprises determining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI).
Volk teaches wherein determining that the control device is in proximity to the video playback device comprises determining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI)(Para.[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Murray and Clarke with the above teachings of Volk in order to improve efficiency of transmit media content.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, 30, 31, 34 and 35 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.
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 SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 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, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights