Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/455,870

SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR PRESENTING MEDIA CONTENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
TAYLOR, JOSHUA D
Art Unit
2426
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
307 granted / 525 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 525 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20-23 are pending. 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. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (Pub. No.: US 2012/0131458) in view of Hjelmstedt (Pub. No.: US 2014/0033257) and Brown et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0325382). Regarding claim 1, Hayes discloses a method for controlling a media receiving device comprising: after launching a receiver application, receiving, by the receiver application from a sender application of the computing device (Fig. 1, element 110. Hayes’ element 110 can be seen as a computing device) via the wireless connection (Fig. 1, element 102, para. [0029]), instructions that correspond to a command received by the computing device, wherein the command is a command to present a media content item (Figs. 3A-3D, paras. [0046]-[0050]) on a media playback device (Fig. 6, element 612, para. [0082]; Display 612 can be seen as a media playback device. Alternatively, the shared display device 140 can be seen as the media playback device.), wherein the instructions identify address information at which the media content item can be obtained (para. [0048]; “Sending flicked content, as referred to herein, may include sending a reference to the flicked content. For example, a sending device may send a reference to the flicked content to a receiving device, which may then obtain the flicked content (e.g., from a data repository).”); obtaining, by the media receiving device from a server associated with the address information and via a wireless connection between the media receiving device and the server and based at least in-part on the instructions, a portion of the media content item (para. [0065]; “In one example, a user on a cellular phone viewing a video streamed online may select the video with a flick. The cellular phone may then send a link to the video to a television (or device in communication with the television). The television through a connected network card may download the video and play the video.”); transferring, by the media receiving device to the media playback device via a wired connection between the media receiving device and the media playback device, the portion of the media content item (Fig. 6, elements 218, 602 and 612, para. [0082]). upon transferring the portion of the media content item to the media playback device, causing the portion of the media content item to begin being presented on the media playback device (para. [0065]); and causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item (para. [0065]; Hayes states that “[t]he user may then control the playback of the video being played on television with the cellular phone. The system may, by default, provide playback control from the source of the video (the cellular phone in this example). Furthermore, the user may transfer playback control to another device (e.g. a tablet) within the same room.” As the user can control playback of the video, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information about the media content item in proximity to the controls, such as the information shown in figure 3C, such that the user would know what video was being controlled. Further, Examiner will show, below, how Hjelmstedt further provides teaching related to this limitation.). It could be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. However, in analogous art, Hjelmstedt discloses an HDMI dongle 22 (similar to Applicant's media receiving device) that is connected to the HDMI input of a television set 16 (similar to Applicant's media playback device) that can be controlled by instruction sent from a smart phone/pad 18 (similar to Applicant's computing device), such that the HDMI dongle can provide streaming media over the internet to the television set via the HDMI input (Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayes to allow for the media receiving device to be detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a user to essentially “upgrade” or “update” a television that did not have “smart television” capabilities by inserting an HDMI dongle into an HDMI port of said television, thus saving the user from having to purchase a new television while giving said user some of the benefits of smart television functionality (Hjelmstedt, paras. [0004], [0076] and [0077]). It could further be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item. However, Hjelmstedt further discloses that “the system 10 provides a remote control 18 equipped with, a screen, and at least one of a WI-FI adapter 20, a cellular network radio communication capability, and a web browser, the WI-FI adapter 20 is in connection with a WI-FI access point 25. A software application program adapted to connect 24, 26 to the backend system 14 through, shows electronic program information (EPG) about media content on the remote control 18 screen browsing said electronic program information and selecting a media content to be viewed by an end-user 112 of the remote control 18 (para. [0079]).” 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 Hayes to allow for the user control interface to include information about the media content item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow the remote control to display information relevant to the user experience, which could increase user involvement and satisfaction with the system. It could also be argued that the combination of Hayes and Hjelmstedt does not explicitly disclose initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. However, in analogous art, Brown discloses that, when sending information between multiple devices, “[t]he data sent from the first device 100 containing the application for the drop target or to launch such an application, may be in response to the connection being established between the first and second devices 100, 300 (Fig. 5, para. [0122]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes and Hjelmstedt to allow for initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the devices to be properly connected when such a connection was requested, and for the applications necessary to carry out the user’s requested actions to be properly launched in order to perform said requested actions. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: receiving, by the media receiving device and via the user control interface of the computing device, an instruction for controlling the presentation of the portion of the media content item on the media playback device (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the instruction corresponds to at least one of a play command for starting the presentation of the portion of the media content item and a pause command for stopping the presentation of the portion of the media content item (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: determining, by the media receiving device, the portion of the media content item obtained from the server based on an instruction for controlling the presentation of the portion of the media content item received by the computing device (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the wired connection is an HDMI connection (Hjelmstedt, Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein, when the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device, a portion of the media receiving device is located within the media playback device and a portion of the media receiving device located outside of the media playback device (Hjelmstedt, Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.). Regarding claim 8, Hayes discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a media receiving device (Fig. 6, element 618, paras. [0087]-[0089]. Communication interface 618 can be seen as a media receiving device. Alternatively, the designated management device of Hayes can be seen as the media receiving device, as Hayes states in para. [0038] that “[t]he shared display device (140) may include functionality to receive, process, and/or manage the content received from multiple sources. The shared display device (140) may be managed by a designated management device (not shown).”), cause the media receiving device to perform operations comprising: after launching a receiver application, receiving, by the receiver application from a sender application of the computing device (Fig. 1, element 110. Hayes’ element 110 can be seen as a computing device) via the wireless connection (Fig. 1, element 102, para. [0029]), instructions that correspond to a command received by the computing device, wherein the command is a command to present a media content item (Figs. 3A-3D, paras. [0046]-[0050]) on a media playback device (Fig. 6, element 612, para. [0082]; Display 612 can be seen as a media playback device. Alternatively, the shared display device 140 can be seen as the media playback device.), wherein the instructions identify address information at which the media content item can be obtained (para. [0048]; “Sending flicked content, as referred to herein, may include sending a reference to the flicked content. For example, a sending device may send a reference to the flicked content to a receiving device, which may then obtain the flicked content (e.g., from a data repository).”); obtaining, by the media receiving device from a server associated with the address information and via a wireless connection between the media receiving device and the server and based at least in-part on the instructions, a portion of the media content item (para. [0065]; “In one example, a user on a cellular phone viewing a video streamed online may select the video with a flick. The cellular phone may then send a link to the video to a television (or device in communication with the television). The television through a connected network card may download the video and play the video.”); transferring, by the media receiving device to the media playback device via a wired connection between the media receiving device and the media playback device, the portion of the media content item (Fig. 6, elements 218, 602 and 612, para. [0082]); upon transferring the portion of the media content item to the media playback device, causing the portion of the media content item to begin being presented on the media playback device (para. [0065]); and causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item (para. [0065]; Hayes states that “[t]he user may then control the playback of the video being played on television with the cellular phone. The system may, by default, provide playback control from the source of the video (the cellular phone in this example). Furthermore, the user may transfer playback control to another device (e.g. a tablet) within the same room.” As the user can control playback of the video, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information about the media content item in proximity to the controls, such as the information shown in figure 3C, such that the user would know what video was being controlled. Further, Examiner will show, below, how Hjelmstedt further provides teaching related to this limitation.). It could be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. However, in analogous art, Hjelmstedt discloses an HDMI dongle 22 (similar to Applicant's media receiving device) that is connected to the HDMI input of a television set 16 (similar to Applicant's media playback device) that can be controlled by instruction sent from a smart phone/pad 18 (similar to Applicant's computing device), such that the HDMI dongle can provide streaming media over the internet to the television set via the HDMI input (Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayes to allow for the media receiving device to be detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a user to essentially “upgrade” or “update” a television that did not have “smart television” capabilities by inserting an HDMI dongle into an HDMI port of said television, thus saving the user from having to purchase a new television while giving said user some of the benefits of smart television functionality (Hjelmstedt, paras. [0004], [0076] and [0077]). It could further be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item. However, Hjelmstedt further discloses that “the system 10 provides a remote control 18 equipped with, a screen, and at least one of a WI-FI adapter 20, a cellular network radio communication capability, and a web browser, the WI-FI adapter 20 is in connection with a WI-FI access point 25. A software application program adapted to connect 24, 26 to the backend system 14 through, shows electronic program information (EPG) about media content on the remote control 18 screen browsing said electronic program information and selecting a media content to be viewed by an end-user 112 of the remote control 18 (para. [0079]).” 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 Hayes to allow for the user control interface to include information about the media content item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow the remote control to display information relevant to the user experience, which could increase user involvement and satisfaction with the system. It could also be argued that the combination of Hayes and Hjelmstedt does not explicitly disclose initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. However, in analogous art, Brown discloses that, when sending information between multiple devices, “[t]he data sent from the first device 100 containing the application for the drop target or to launch such an application, may be in response to the connection being established between the first and second devices 100, 300 (Fig. 5, para. [0122]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes and Hjelmstedt to allow for initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the devices to be properly connected when such a connection was requested, and for the applications necessary to carry out the user’s requested actions to be properly launched in order to perform said requested actions. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, and further discloses the operations further comprising: receiving, by the media receiving device and via the user control interface on the computing device, an instruction for controlling the presentation of the portion of the media content item on the media playback device (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the instruction corresponds to at least one of a play command for starting the presentation of the portion of the media content item and a pause command for stopping the presentation of the portion of the media content item (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, and further discloses the operations further comprising: determining, by the media receiving device, the portion of the media content item obtained from the server based on an instruction for controlling the presentation of the portion of the media content item received by the computing device (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the wired connection is an HDMI connection (Hjelmstedt, Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.). Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, and further discloses wherein, when the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device, a portion of the media receiving device is located within the media playback device and a portion of the media receiving device is located outside of the media playback device (Hjelmstedt, Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.). Regarding claim 15, Hayes discloses a media receiving device (Fig. 6, element 618, paras. [0087]-[0089]. Communication interface 618 can be seen as a media receiving device. Alternatively, the designated management device of Hayes can be seen as the media receiving device, as Hayes states in para. [0038] that “[t]he shared display device (140) may include functionality to receive, process, and/or manage the content received from multiple sources. The shared display device (140) may be managed by a designated management device (not shown).”) comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 6, element 604, paras. [0078]-[0083]); and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the media receiving device to perform operations comprising: after launching a receiver application, receiving, by the receiver application from a sender application of the computing device (Fig. 1, element 110. Hayes’ element 110 can be seen as a computing device) via the wireless connection (Fig. 1, element 102, para. [0029]), instructions that correspond to a command received by the computing device, wherein the command is a command to present a media content item (Figs. 3A-3D, paras. [0046]-[0050]) on a media playback device (Fig. 6, element 612, para. [0082]; Display 612 can be seen as a media playback device. Alternatively, the shared display device 140 can be seen as the media playback device.), wherein the instructions identify address information at which the media content item can be obtained (para. [0048]; “Sending flicked content, as referred to herein, may include sending a reference to the flicked content. For example, a sending device may send a reference to the flicked content to a receiving device, which may then obtain the flicked content (e.g., from a data repository).”); obtaining, by the media receiving device from a server associated with the address information and via a wireless connection between the media receiving device and the server and based at least in-part on the instructions, a portion of the media content item (para. [0065]; “In one example, a user on a cellular phone viewing a video streamed online may select the video with a flick. The cellular phone may then send a link to the video to a television (or device in communication with the television). The television through a connected network card may download the video and play the video.”); transferring, by the media receiving device to the media playback device via a wired connection between the media receiving device and the media playback device, the portion of the media content item (Fig. 6, elements 218, 602 and 612, para. [0082]); upon transferring the portion of the media content item to the media playback device, causing the portion of the media content item to begin being presented on the media playback device (para. [0065]); and causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item (para. [0065]; Hayes states that “[t]he user may then control the playback of the video being played on television with the cellular phone. The system may, by default, provide playback control from the source of the video (the cellular phone in this example). Furthermore, the user may transfer playback control to another device (e.g. a tablet) within the same room.” As the user can control playback of the video, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information about the media content item in proximity to the controls, such as the information shown in figure 3C, such that the user would know what video was being controlled. Further, Examiner will show, below, how Hjelmstedt further provides teaching related to this limitation.). It could be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. However, in analogous art, Hjelmstedt discloses an HDMI dongle 22 (similar to Applicant's media receiving device) that is connected to the HDMI input of a television set 16 (similar to Applicant's media playback device) that can be controlled by instruction sent from a smart phone/pad 18 (similar to Applicant's computing device), such that the HDMI dongle can provide streaming media over the internet to the television set via the HDMI input (Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayes to allow for the media receiving device to be detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a user to essentially “upgrade” or “update” a television that did not have “smart television” capabilities by inserting an HDMI dongle into an HDMI port of said television, thus saving the user from having to purchase a new television while giving said user some of the benefits of smart television functionality (Hjelmstedt, paras. [0004], [0076] and [0077]). It could further be argued that Hayes does not explicitly disclose wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item. However, Hjelmstedt further discloses that “the system 10 provides a remote control 18 equipped with, a screen, and at least one of a WI-FI adapter 20, a cellular network radio communication capability, and a web browser, the WI-FI adapter 20 is in connection with a WI-FI access point 25. A software application program adapted to connect 24, 26 to the backend system 14 through, shows electronic program information (EPG) about media content on the remote control 18 screen browsing said electronic program information and selecting a media content to be viewed by an end-user 112 of the remote control 18 (para. [0079]).” 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 Hayes to allow for the user control interface to include information about the media content item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow the remote control to display information relevant to the user experience, which could increase user involvement and satisfaction with the system. It could also be argued that the combination of Hayes and Hjelmstedt does not explicitly disclose initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. However, in analogous art, Brown discloses that, when sending information between multiple devices, “[t]he data sent from the first device 100 containing the application for the drop target or to launch such an application, may be in response to the connection being established between the first and second devices 100, 300 (Fig. 5, para. [0122]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes and Hjelmstedt to allow for initiating, by the media receiving device, a wireless communication session between the media receiving device and a computing device, wherein initiating the wireless communication session causes the media receiving device to be connected to the computing device via a wireless connection; launching a receiver application on the media receiving device, wherein the receiver application enables the media receiving device to receive commands from the computing device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the devices to be properly connected when such a connection was requested, and for the applications necessary to carry out the user’s requested actions to be properly launched in order to perform said requested actions. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the media receiving device of claim 15, and further discloses the operations further comprising: receiving, by the media receiving device and via the user control interface on the computing device, an instruction for controlling the presentation of the portion of the media content item on the media playback device, wherein the instruction corresponds to at least one of a play command for starting the presentation of the portion of the media content item and a pause command for stopping the presentation of the portion of the media content item (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the media receiving device of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the media receiving device is included in the media playback device (Hayes, Fig. 1, element 140, para. [0038]). Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the media receiving device of claim 15, and further discloses the operations further comprising: determining, by the media receiving device, the portion of the media content item obtained from the server based on an instruction for controlling the presentation of the media content item received by the computing device (Hayes, para. [0065]). Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the media receiving device of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the wired connection is an HDMI connection (Hjelmstedt, Fig. 2, elements 16, 18 and 22, paras. [0071]-[0084]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the user control interface is displayed as an overlay on an application screen of the computing device (Brown, para. [0064]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.). Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the user control interface is displayed as an overlay on an application screen of the computing device (Brown, para. [0064]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.). Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hayes, Hjelmstedt and Brown discloses the media receiving device of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the user control interface is displayed as an overlay on an application screen of the computing device (Brown, para. [0064]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10: Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Hayes, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0131458 ("Hayes") in view of Hjelmstedt, U.S. Publication No. 2014/0033257 ("Hjelmstedt") and Brown et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0325382 ("Brown"). Without conceding there is merit to the rejections, claim 1 as presented recites, inter alia: A method for controlling a media receiving device comprising: ... transferring, by the media receiving device to the media playback device via a wired connection between the media receiving device and the media playback device, the portion of the media content item, wherein the media receiving device is detachably coupled to the media playback device via the wired connection; upon transferring the portion of the media content item to the media playback device, causing the portion of the media item to begin being presented on the media playback device; and causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item. Hayes fails to teach at least "causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item." The Office Action asserts Hayes teaches "transferring, by the media receiving device to the media playback device via a wired connection between the media receiving device and the media playback device, the portion of the media content item. (Action, p. 4). Further, in rejecting claims 2 and 3, the Action asserts Hayes teaches "receiving, by the media receiving device from the computing device, an instruction for controlling a presentation of the portion of the media content item on the media playback device... wherein the instruction corresponds to at least one of a play command for starting the presentation of the portion of the media content item and a pause command for stopping the presentation of the portion of the media content item". (Action, pp. 5-6.) In making these rejections, the Office Action points to paragraph [0065] of Hayes, which reads: In an embodiment, a display screen on a shared display device is split up into different sections. For example, the display screen may include two or four sections, where each section displays content flicked to the display screen by a particular device. If four users, each with a device, flick content to a shared display screen with four sections, each user may have their own section for displaying content that is flicked by that user. In turn, each user has control over the playback of the content played in that section (e.g., using trickplay functions-fast-forward, pause, reverse, play, frame step, etc.). In one example, a user on a cellular phone viewing a video streamed online may select the video with a flick. The cellular phone may then send a link to the video to a television (or device in communication with the television). The television through a connected network card may download the video and play the video. The user may then control the playback of the video being played on television with the cellular phone. Even assuming Hayes discloses the features as asserted by the Office Action as noted above, Hayes fails to disclose "causing, during the presentation of the portion of the media content item, the computing device to present a user control interface on the computing device, wherein the user control interface includes information about the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item." As indicated above, Hayes discloses control over playback of the content, such as by using "fast-forward, pause, reverse, play and frame step." In particular, while Hayes discusses control over playback, there is no disclosure that amounts to a control interface that includes "information about the media content item." In fact, the disclosure of Hayes is silent as to any user control interface on the computing device that includes information related to the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item, as recited in the amended claim. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Hayes fails to teach the limitations of amended claim 1. None of the other cited references cure the deficiencies of Hayes, whether considered alone or in combination. Thus, claim 1 as amended is not obvious in light of the cited prior art. Further in this regard, Applicant notes that claim 21, as newly presented, recites "wherein the user control interface is displayed as an overlay on an application screen of the computing device." It is respectfully that these claim features further distinguish this claim from the prior art. For at least these reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references and, therefore, requests that the rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims be withdrawn. Moreover, independent claims 8 and 15 may be compared with claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 8 and 15 are patentable for at least the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 8 and 15, as well the claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn. Examiner’s response: Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that “the disclosure of Hayes is silent as to any user control interface on the computing device that includes information related to the media content item and controls to modify the presentation of the media content item.” Applicant has noted that Hayes does disclose “fast-forward, pause, reverse, play and frame step,” and further, as the user can control playback of the video, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information about the media content item in proximity to the controls, such as the information shown in figure 3C, such that the user would know what video was being controlled. However, if Applicant is not convinced by this position, Examiner has also shown how Hjelmstedt further provides teaching related to this limitation. That is, Hjelmstedt discloses that “the system 10 provides a remote control 18 equipped with, a screen, and at least one of a WI-FI adapter 20, a cellular network radio communication capability, and a web browser, the WI-FI adapter 20 is in connection with a WI-FI access point 25. A software application program adapted to connect 24, 26 to the backend system 14 through, shows electronic program information (EPG) about media content on the remote control 18 screen browsing said electronic program information and selecting a media content to be viewed by an end-user 112 of the remote control 18 (para. [0079]).” 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 Hayes to allow for the user control interface to include information about the media content item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow the remote control to display information relevant to the user experience, which could increase user involvement and satisfaction with the system. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection. Conclusion Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 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 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. /Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 March 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 07, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 29, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604065
Systems and Methods for Broadcasting Data Contents Related to Media Contents Using a Media Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604051
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING A MULTIPLE USER PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598350
METHODS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND APPARATUS FOR ADAPTIVE METERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12556777
LIVE VIDEO RENDERING AND BROADCASTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12556488
NETWORK TRAFFIC ARBITRATION BASED ON PACKET PRIORITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+30.5%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 525 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month