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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616) and Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327).
Regarding claim 1, Pardue discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: pairing (Fig. 38, para. [0236]) a first screen device displaying at least one media item (Fig. 1, elements 22 and 36, paras. [0069] and [0072]) and a second screen device acting as a controller relative to the at least one media item (Fig. 1, elements 34 and 38, paras. [0070]-[0074]); determining a context associated with the at least one media item (Fig. 15, para. [0134]; “By selecting any other content episode a recording indicator may be provided to the user to allow the user to set a recording function from the mobile device;” Fig. 22, para. [0144]; “Status box 1116 indicates a confirmation of order. A confirmation box 2212 is illustrated that instructs the user of the mobile device to confirm the purchase. Purchases may be confirmed using an authentication scheme, by entering a credit card or by some other type of authorization.” The scenarios described in figure 15 and 22 both require determining a context associated with a media item, whether it involves recording or purchasing said media item.); generating, based on the context, instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface (Fig. 10, paras. [0124]-[0126]. Figure 10 shows an example of the display of a mobile device being used as a remote control. In order to change the display of figure 10 to accommodate the instructions necessary to implement the processes described in figures 15 or 22, discussed above, the system would axiomatically have to generate and transmit instructions to cause the graphical user interface to display the required information to allow the user to carry out the necessary steps.).
It could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose such that a user simultaneously interacts with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. However, in analogous art, Mittal discloses that “a small handheld computerized device, such as a smart phone, may control the playback of web and web video content on a separate larger video display (para. [0023]; see also Fig. 1 and paras. [0027]-[0046]).” 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 Pardue to allow for a user to be able to simultaneously interact with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique in the art, the controlling of playback using a secondary device such as a smart phone, to be utilized.
It could be further argued that the combination of Pardue and Mittal does not explicitly disclose generating, based on the context, first instructions to modify one or more components of a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device and second instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting the first instructions to the first screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the graphical user interface and the second instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface. However, in analogous art, Law discloses a system with a main display device and one or more companion devices, wherein “FIG. 2 provides another example where interface 10 (e.g., a high definition television) is used in conjunction with one or two companion devices. For example, FIG. 2 shows companion device 100 and companion device 102. In one embodiment, companion devices 100 and 102 are cellular telephones (e.g., Smartphones). In other embodiments, companion devices 100 and 102 can be notebook computers, tablets, or other wireless and/or mobile computing devices. In one embodiment, both companion devices 100 and 102 are being operated by the same user. In another embodiment, different users can be operating the companion devices such that a first user is operating companion device 100 and a second user is operating companion device 102. In many cases, the users operating the companion devices are also viewing interface 10. In one example, two people are sitting on a couch watching television (interface 10) while each also can view his/her own cellular telephone (100 and 102). In the example of FIG. 2, event indicator 50 is associated with an event of an actress entering a scene wearing a particular dress. In this case, either of the two users watching the television show of movie can interact with the alert 52 using any of the means discussed herein. If the first user interacts with alert 52, then the first user's companion device 100 will be configured to show the various buttons of the menu for the user to interact with. For example, area 104 of companion device 100 shows five buttons for the user to buy the dress depicted in the movie (buy dress), get information about the dress (dress info), shop for similar dresses via the internet (shop for similar dresses), tell a friend about the dress (tell a friend) via social networking instant messaging, e-mail, etc., or post a comment about the dress (post). If the second user interacts with alert 52 as discussed above, then companion computing device 102 for the second user will show a set of buttons for a menu on region 106 of companion device 102. The second user can choose to get more information about the actress (actress info), view other movies or television shows that the actress was involved in (view other titles with actress), tell a friend about this particular actress and/or show (tell a friend) or post a comment (post). In one embodiment, both devices will display the same options for the same alert 52 (if the devices have the same capabilities). In one embodiment, the first user and the second user will each have their own user profile known by the relevant computing device powering interface 10. Based on that profile, and the code and content associated with event indicator 50, the computing device will know which buttons and menu options to provide to the relative companion device for the particular user. The relevant code and content will be provided to the particular companion device in order to program the companion device to provide the interaction depicted in FIG. 2. Note that the code and content displayed to the user may also be based on other factors such as the capability of the devices (e.g., more multimedia-rich options might be shown to a laptop device as opposed to a mobile phone device), the time/date/location of the users/devices, etc., not just by the user profile. In some cases, there may not be a profile for the person viewing the content (paras. [0037]-[0039]).” 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 Pardue and Mittal to allow for generating, based on the context, first instructions to modify one or more components of a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device and second instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting the first instructions to the first screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the graphical user interface and the second instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the appropriate information to be properly displayed in the required location; i.e. the proper screen, in order to carry out the user requested functionality.
Regarding claim 10, Pardue discloses a system comprising: at least one physical processor (para. [0049]); and physical memory (para. [0049]) comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts comprising: pairing (Fig. 38, para. [0236]) a first screen device displaying at least one media item (Fig. 1, elements 22 and 36, paras. [0069] and [0072]) and a second screen device acting as a controller relative to the at least one media item (Fig. 1, elements 34 and 38, paras. [0070]-[0074]); determining a context associated with the at least one media item (Fig. 15, para. [0134]; “By selecting any other content episode a recording indicator may be provided to the user to allow the user to set a recording function from the mobile device;” Fig. 22, para. [0144]; “Status box 1116 indicates a confirmation of order. A confirmation box 2212 is illustrated that instructs the user of the mobile device to confirm the purchase. Purchases may be confirmed using an authentication scheme, by entering a credit card or by some other type of authorization.” The scenarios described in figure 15 and 22 both require determining a context associated with a media item, whether it involves recording or purchasing said media item.); generating, based on the context, instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting the instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface (Fig. 10, paras. [0124]-[0126]. Figure 10 shows an example of the display of a mobile device being used as a remote control. In order to change the display of figure 10 to accommodate the instructions necessary to implement the processes described in figures 15 or 22, discussed above, the system would axiomatically have to generate and transmit instructions to cause the graphical user interface to display the required information to allow the user to carry out the necessary steps.).
It could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose such that a user simultaneously interacts with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. However, in analogous art, Mittal discloses that “a small handheld computerized device, such as a smart phone, may control the playback of web and web video content on a separate larger video display (para. [0023]; see also Fig. 1 and paras. [0027]-[0046]).” 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 Pardue to allow for a user to be able to simultaneously interact with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique in the art, the controlling of playback using a secondary device such as a smart phone, to be utilized.
It could be further argued that the combination of Pardue and Mittal does not explicitly disclose generating, based on the context, first instructions to modify one or more components of a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device and second instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting the first instructions to the first screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the graphical user interface and the second instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface. However, in analogous art, Law discloses a system with a main display device and one or more companion devices, wherein “FIG. 2 provides another example where interface 10 (e.g., a high definition television) is used in conjunction with one or two companion devices. For example, FIG. 2 shows companion device 100 and companion device 102. In one embodiment, companion devices 100 and 102 are cellular telephones (e.g., Smartphones). In other embodiments, companion devices 100 and 102 can be notebook computers, tablets, or other wireless and/or mobile computing devices. In one embodiment, both companion devices 100 and 102 are being operated by the same user. In another embodiment, different users can be operating the companion devices such that a first user is operating companion device 100 and a second user is operating companion device 102. In many cases, the users operating the companion devices are also viewing interface 10. In one example, two people are sitting on a couch watching television (interface 10) while each also can view his/her own cellular telephone (100 and 102). In the example of FIG. 2, event indicator 50 is associated with an event of an actress entering a scene wearing a particular dress. In this case, either of the two users watching the television show of movie can interact with the alert 52 using any of the means discussed herein. If the first user interacts with alert 52, then the first user's companion device 100 will be configured to show the various buttons of the menu for the user to interact with. For example, area 104 of companion device 100 shows five buttons for the user to buy the dress depicted in the movie (buy dress), get information about the dress (dress info), shop for similar dresses via the internet (shop for similar dresses), tell a friend about the dress (tell a friend) via social networking instant messaging, e-mail, etc., or post a comment about the dress (post). If the second user interacts with alert 52 as discussed above, then companion computing device 102 for the second user will show a set of buttons for a menu on region 106 of companion device 102. The second user can choose to get more information about the actress (actress info), view other movies or television shows that the actress was involved in (view other titles with actress), tell a friend about this particular actress and/or show (tell a friend) or post a comment (post). In one embodiment, both devices will display the same options for the same alert 52 (if the devices have the same capabilities). In one embodiment, the first user and the second user will each have their own user profile known by the relevant computing device powering interface 10. Based on that profile, and the code and content associated with event indicator 50, the computing device will know which buttons and menu options to provide to the relative companion device for the particular user. The relevant code and content will be provided to the particular companion device in order to program the companion device to provide the interaction depicted in FIG. 2. Note that the code and content displayed to the user may also be based on other factors such as the capability of the devices (e.g., more multimedia-rich options might be shown to a laptop device as opposed to a mobile phone device), the time/date/location of the users/devices, etc., not just by the user profile. In some cases, there may not be a profile for the person viewing the content (paras. [0037]-[0039]).” 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 Pardue and Mittal to allow for generating, based on the context, first instructions to modify one or more components of a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device and second instructions to modify one or more components of a playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device; and transmitting the first instructions to the first screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the graphical user interface and the second instructions to the second screen device to trigger modification of the one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the appropriate information to be properly displayed in the required location; i.e. the proper screen, in order to carry out the user requested functionality.
Claims 2, 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327), Delpuch (Pub. No.: US 2014/0259061) and Smith et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0191757).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein pairing the first screen device displaying the at least one media item and the second screen device acting as the controller comprises: receiving a device subscription request from the first screen device; receiving a device subscription request from the second screen device; and in response to receiving a request from the first screen device to pair with the second screen device, associating the first screen device and the second screen device. However, in analogous art, Delpuch discloses that “[t]he devices to be paired, for example, the receiver and the remote control, are placed next to each other. When the devices detect each other, pairing may be initiated, i.e., the receiver detects the remote control and determines if an identifier of the remote control is already stored in a setup memory of the receiver or not. If not, a message may be displayed to the user to initiate the pairing by pressing e.g., an "OK" button or "exit" button if pairing is not desired. When the user approves the pairing, a pairing request message containing an identifier of the remote control is sent to the receiver, which returns an acknowledgement message containing parameters of the receiver that are necessary for pairing (para. [0044]).” 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for receiving a device subscription request from the first screen device, receiving a device subscription request from the second screen device, and in response to receiving a request from the first screen device to pair with the second screen device, associating the first screen device and the second screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the devices to pair using well-understood principles.
The combination as stated above does not disclose generating a device subscription list including the first screen device; nor adding the second screen device to the device subscription list; transmitting the device subscription list to the first screen device. However, in analogous art, Smith discloses “[t]urning now to 9017, the expanded view of the enhanced device user interface lists all devices that are available on the network. All devices that are paired are grouped at the top of the list, and have a "Connect/Disconnect" button. The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication. The user can select any disconnected device to connect with that device, as seen at 9025 (para. [0096]; see also Fig. 10),” and “[t]he user may choose to pair with any device in the list (if applicable) and give that device a custom name. If the user's device of interest is not available in the list, he or she may choose "Add Device" button 9115 and add that device manually. Of all the paired devices, only one can be connected at a time. The user may quickly select which device to connect to from the list of all paired devices (para. [0109]; see also Fig. 19).” 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 the above art to allow for generating a device subscription list including the first screen device, and adding the second screen device to the device subscription list; transmitting the device subscription list to the first screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to see which devices were available for pairing, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination as stated above discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, and further discloses further comprising, in response to associating the first screen device and the second screen device: receiving one or more messages from the first screen device; and pushing the one or more messages to the second screen device (Pardue, Fig. 10, paras. [0124]-[0126]. Figure 10 shows an example of the display of a mobile device being used as a remote control. In order to change the display of figure 10 to accommodate the instructions necessary to implement the processes described in figures 15 or 22, discussed above, the system would axiomatically have to generate and transmit instructions to cause the graphical user interface to display the required information to allow the user to carry out the necessary steps.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the system of claim 10, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein pairing the first screen device displaying the at least one media item and the second screen device acting as the controller comprises: receiving a device subscription request from the first screen device; receiving a device subscription request from the second screen device; and in response to receiving a request to pair with the second screen device from the first screen device, associating the first screen device and the second screen device. However, in analogous art, Delpuch discloses that “[t]he devices to be paired, for example, the receiver and the remote control, are placed next to each other. When the devices detect each other, pairing may be initiated, i.e., the receiver detects the remote control and determines if an identifier of the remote control is already stored in a setup memory of the receiver or not. If not, a message may be displayed to the user to initiate the pairing by pressing e.g., an "OK" button or "exit" button if pairing is not desired. When the user approves the pairing, a pairing request message containing an identifier of the remote control is sent to the receiver, which returns an acknowledgement message containing parameters of the receiver that are necessary for pairing (para. [0044]).” 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for receiving a device subscription request from the first screen device, receiving a device subscription request from the second screen device, and in response to receiving a request from the first screen device to pair with the second screen device, associating the first screen device and the second screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the devices to pair using well-understood principles.
The combination as stated above does not disclose generating a device subscription list including the first screen device; nor adding the second screen device to the device subscription list; transmitting the device subscription list to the first screen device. However, in analogous art, Smith discloses “[t]urning now to 9017, the expanded view of the enhanced device user interface lists all devices that are available on the network. All devices that are paired are grouped at the top of the list, and have a "Connect/Disconnect" button. The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication. The user can select any disconnected device to connect with that device, as seen at 9025 (para. [0096]; see also Fig. 10),” and “[t]he user may choose to pair with any device in the list (if applicable) and give that device a custom name. If the user's device of interest is not available in the list, he or she may choose "Add Device" button 9115 and add that device manually. Of all the paired devices, only one can be connected at a time. The user may quickly select which device to connect to from the list of all paired devices (para. [0109]; see also Fig. 19).” 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 the above art to allow for generating a device subscription list including the first screen device, and adding the second screen device to the device subscription list; transmitting the device subscription list to the first screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to see which devices were available for pairing, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination as stated above discloses the system of claim 11, and further discloses further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts comprising, in response to associating the first screen device and the second screen device: receiving one or more messages from the first screen device; and pushing the one or more messages to the second screen device (Pardue, Fig. 10, paras. [0124]-[0126]. Figure 10 shows an example of the display of a mobile device being used as a remote control. In order to change the display of figure 10 to accommodate the instructions necessary to implement the processes described in figures 15 or 22, discussed above, the system would axiomatically have to generate and transmit instructions to cause the graphical user interface to display the required information to allow the user to carry out the necessary steps.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327) and Smith et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0191757).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein pairing the first screen device and the second screen device is in response to a detected selection of the first screen device from a pairing option list displayed by the second screen device. However, in analogous art, Smith discloses “[t]urning now to 9017, the expanded view of the enhanced device user interface lists all devices that are available on the network. All devices that are paired are grouped at the top of the list, and have a "Connect/Disconnect" button. The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication. The user can select any disconnected device to connect with that device, as seen at 9025 (para. [0096]; see also Fig. 10),” and “[t]he user may choose to pair with any device in the list (if applicable) and give that device a custom name. If the user's device of interest is not available in the list, he or she may choose "Add Device" button 9115 and add that device manually. Of all the paired devices, only one can be connected at a time. The user may quickly select which device to connect to from the list of all paired devices (para. [0109]; see also Fig. 19).” 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for pairing the first screen device and the second screen device in response to a detected selection of the first screen device from a pairing option list displayed by the second screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to see which devices were available for pairing, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the system of claim 10, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein pairing the first screen device and the second screen device is in response to a detected selection of the first screen device from a pairing option list displayed by the second screen device. However, in analogous art, Smith discloses “[t]urning now to 9017, the expanded view of the enhanced device user interface lists all devices that are available on the network. All devices that are paired are grouped at the top of the list, and have a "Connect/Disconnect" button. The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication. The user can select any disconnected device to connect with that device, as seen at 9025 (para. [0096]; see also Fig. 10),” and “[t]he user may choose to pair with any device in the list (if applicable) and give that device a custom name. If the user's device of interest is not available in the list, he or she may choose "Add Device" button 9115 and add that device manually. Of all the paired devices, only one can be connected at a time. The user may quickly select which device to connect to from the list of all paired devices (para. [0109]; see also Fig. 19).” 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for pairing the first screen device and the second screen device in response to a detected selection of the first screen device from a pairing option list displayed by the second screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to be able to see which devices were available for pairing, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327), Smith et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0191757) and Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0120103).
Regarding claim 5, the combination as stated above discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and further discloses further comprising, in response to pairing the first screen device and the second screen device: causing the second screen device to display an indication of successful pairing within the playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device (Smith, para. [0096]; “The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication;” see also Fig. 19); but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose and causing the first screen device to display the indication of successful pairing within a media item graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device. However, in analogous art, Wang discloses that “[a]fter the remote control is paired and connected with the smart television, a message for indicating “successful pairing” if pairing succeeds is presented as an alert for the user, which is as shown in FIG. 11, and a message for indicating “Bluetooth remote pairing failed” if pairing fails is presented as an alert for the user, which is as shown in FIG. 12 (para. [0136]).” 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 the above art to allow for causing the first screen device to display the indication of successful pairing within a media item graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would give the user another indication of a successful pairing, which could increase user understanding and satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 14, the combination as stated above discloses the system of claim 13, and further discloses further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts comprising, in response to pairing the first screen device and the second screen device: causing the second screen device to display an indication of successful pairing within the playback control graphical user interface displayed by the second screen device (Smith, para. [0096]; “The currently paired device button states "disconnect" and its state is reinforced with a green dot or other indication;” see also Fig. 19); but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose and causing the first screen device to display the indication of successful pairing within a media item graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device. However, in analogous art, Wang discloses that “[a]fter the remote control is paired and connected with the smart television, a message for indicating “successful pairing” if pairing succeeds is presented as an alert for the user, which is as shown in FIG. 11, and a message for indicating “Bluetooth remote pairing failed” if pairing fails is presented as an alert for the user, which is as shown in FIG. 12 (para. [0136]).” 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 the above art to allow for causing the first screen device to display the indication of successful pairing within a media item graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would give the user another indication of a successful pairing, which could increase user understanding and satisfaction with the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327) and Domm et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0304863).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device, wherein the instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface are based on whether the at least one media item is a standalone media item or an episodic media item. However, in analogous art, Domm discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, the selectable option displays a different textual label based on whether the content item is a television show or a movie (e.g., or otherwise not an episodic content) and displays different portions of the canonical page when selected based on whether the content item is a television show or a movie (e.g., or otherwise not an episodic content) (para. [0457]).” 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for generating instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device, wherein the instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface are based on whether the at least one media item is a standalone media item or an episodic media item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow pertinent information to be displayed based on the specific type of media, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327) and Fuzell-Casey et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0147562).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the context associated with the at least one media item comprises at least one of: determining that playback of the at least one media item has been initiated; determining that playback of the at least one media item has entered an introduction portion of the at least one media item; determining that the at least one media item is a last episode in a collection of episodes; or determining that a subtitle selection associated with the at least one media item has been made. However, in analogous art, Fuzell-Casey discloses that “[a] play button associated with each track in the playlist of an open collection may be selected to play that track in the music player 320. When the track starts playing, the play button in the playlist and in the music player 320 may switch to a pause button (para. [0068]),” which teaches that after determining that playback of the media item has been initiated, the graphical user interface could display a pause button rather than a play button. 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for determining the context associated with the at least one media item to comprises determining that playback of the media item has been initiated. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for displaying a button that made logical sense depending on the context of a media item; that is, to display a play button when the item was not playing, and to display a pause button when the item was playing.
Regarding claim 8, the combination as stated above discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, and further discloses further comprising: detecting one or more user selections of components within the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device; and communicating the detected one or more selections to the first screen device (Pardue, Fig. 7, elements 722, 724, 726, 728 and 730, paras. [0116]-[0119]; Fuzell-Casey, para. [0068]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein generating instructions to modify one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface comprises one or more of: generating instructions to provide a new component within the playback control graphical user interface; generating instructions to highlight an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; generating instructions to modify an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; or generating instructions to update a position of a playback scrubber within the playback control graphical user interface. However, in analogous art, Fuzell-Casey discloses that “[a] play button associated with each track in the playlist of an open collection may be selected to play that track in the music player 320. When the track starts playing, the play button in the playlist and in the music player 320 may switch to a pause button (para. [0068]),” which teaches that after determining that playback of the media item has been initiated, the graphical user interface could display a pause button rather than a play button. 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for generating instructions to modify one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface to comprise generating instructions to modify an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; i.e. to modify the existing play button, and change it to a pause button, upon playback beginning. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for displaying a button that made logical sense depending on the context of a media item; that is, to display a play button when the item was not playing, and to display a pause button when the item was playing.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the system of claim 10, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the context associated with the at least one media item comprises at least one of: determining that playback of the at least one media item has been initiated; determining that playback of the at least one media item has entered an introduction portion of the media item; determining that the at least one media item is a last episode in a collection of episodes; or determining that a subtitle selection associated with the at least one media item has been made. However, in analogous art, Fuzell-Casey discloses that “[a] play button associated with each track in the playlist of an open collection may be selected to play that track in the music player 320. When the track starts playing, the play button in the playlist and in the music player 320 may switch to a pause button (para. [0068]),” which teaches that after determining that playback of the media item has been initiated, the graphical user interface could display a pause button rather than a play button. 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for determining the context associated with the at least one media item to comprises determining that playback of the media item has been initiated. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for displaying a button that made logical sense depending on the context of a media item; that is, to display a play button when the item was not playing, and to display a pause button when the item was playing.
Regarding claim 17, the combination as stated above discloses the system of claim 16, and further discloses further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts comprising: detecting one or more user selections of components within the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device; and communicating the detected one or more selections to the first screen device (Pardue, Fig. 7, elements 722, 724, 726, 728 and 730, paras. [0116]-[0119]; Fuzell-Casey, para. [0068]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pardue, Mittal and Law discloses the system of claim 10, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose wherein generating instructions to modify one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface comprises one or more of: generating instructions to provide a new component within the playback control graphical user interface; generating instructions to highlight an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; generating instructions to modify an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; or generating instructions to update a position of a playback scrubber within the playback control graphical user interface. However, in analogous art, Fuzell-Casey discloses that “[a] play button associated with each track in the playlist of an open collection may be selected to play that track in the music player 320. When the track starts playing, the play button in the playlist and in the music player 320 may switch to a pause button (para. [0068]),” which teaches that after determining that playback of the media item has been initiated, the graphical user interface could display a pause button rather than a play button. 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 Pardue, Mittal and Law to allow for generating instructions to modify one or more components of the playback control graphical user interface to comprise generating instructions to modify an existing component within the playback control graphical user interface; i.e. to modify the existing play button, and change it to a pause button, upon playback beginning. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for displaying a button that made logical sense depending on the context of a media item; that is, to display a play button when the item was not playing, and to display a pause button when the item was playing.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327), Smith et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0191757), Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0120103) and Domm et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0304863).
Regarding claim 15, the combination as stated above discloses the system of claim 14, but it could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor, cause the at least one physical processor to perform an act comprising generating instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device, wherein the instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface are based on whether the at least one media item is a standalone media item or an episodic media item. However, in analogous art, Domm discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, the selectable option displays a different textual label based on whether the content item is a television show or a movie (e.g., or otherwise not an episodic content) and displays different portions of the canonical page when selected based on whether the content item is a television show or a movie (e.g., or otherwise not an episodic content) (para. [0457]).” 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 the above art to allow for generating instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface on the second screen device, wherein the instructions to display the playback control graphical user interface are based on whether the at least one media item is a standalone media item or an episodic media item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow pertinent information to be displayed based on the specific type of media, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardue et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0230705) in view of Mittal (Pub. No.: US 2012/0054616), Fuzell-Casey et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0147562) and Law et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0159327).
Regarding claim 19, Pardue discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a second screen device via digital content system application, instructions to generate a control graphical user interface associated with a media item displayed on a first screen device (Fig. 10, paras. [0124]-[0126]. Figure 10 shows an example of the display of a mobile device being used as a remote control. In order to change the display of figure 10 to accommodate the instructions necessary to implement the processes described in figures 15 or 22, discussed above, the system would axiomatically have to generate and transmit instructions to cause the graphical user interface to display the required information to allow the user to carry out the necessary steps.); transmitting, in response to a detected selection of a pause/play button within the control graphical user interface, an electronic communication that initiates playback of the media item (Fig. 17, element 1730; “Tap or say “WATCH,” para. [0137]).
It could be argued that Pardue does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the second screen device via the digital content system application, instructions that trigger one or more modifications of the control graphical user interface based on playback of the media item entering an introduction portion of the media item; and modifying the control graphical user interface based on the received instructions. However, in analogous art, Fuzell-Casey discloses that “[a] play button associated with each track in the playlist of an open collection may be selected to play that track in the music player 320. When the track starts playing, the play button in the playlist and in the music player 320 may switch to a pause button. Once a track has been selected to play, when that track has finished playing, the next track in the collection may be played (para. [0068]),” which teaches that when media is “entering an introduction portion,” i.e. beginning to be played, the “control graphical user interface” could be modified “based on the received instructions,” i.e. the graphical user interface could display a pause button rather than a play button. 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 Pardue to allow for receiving, at the second screen device via the digital content system application, instructions that trigger one or more modifications of the control graphical user interface based on playback of the media item entering an introduction portion of the media item, and modifying the control graphical user interface based on the received instructions. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for displaying a button that made logical sense depending on the context of a media item; that is, to display a play button when the item was not playing, and to display a pause button when the item was playing.
It could be argued that the combination of Pardue and Fuzell-Casey does not explicitly disclose such that a user simultaneously interacts with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. However, in analogous art, Mittal discloses that “a small handheld computerized device, such as a smart phone, may control the playback of web and web video content on a separate larger video display (para. [0023]; see also Fig. 1 and paras. [0027]-[0046]).” 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 Pardue and Fuzell-Casey to allow for a user to be able to simultaneously interact with the at least one media item using the first screen device and the second screen device to control playback. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique in the art, the controlling of playback using a secondary device such as a smart phone, to be utilized.
It could be argued that the combination of Pardue, Fuzell-Casey and Mittal does not explicitly disclose wherein a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device is modified based on a context of the at least one media item. However, in analogous art, Law discloses a system with a main display device and one or more companion devices, wherein “FIG. 2 provides another example where interface 10 (e.g., a high definition television) is used in conjunction with one or two companion devices. For example, FIG. 2 shows companion device 100 and companion device 102. In one embodiment, companion devices 100 and 102 are cellular telephones (e.g., Smartphones). In other embodiments, companion devices 100 and 102 can be notebook computers, tablets, or other wireless and/or mobile computing devices. In one embodiment, both companion devices 100 and 102 are being operated by the same user. In another embodiment, different users can be operating the companion devices such that a first user is operating companion device 100 and a second user is operating companion device 102. In many cases, the users operating the companion devices are also viewing interface 10. In one example, two people are sitting on a couch watching television (interface 10) while each also can view his/her own cellular telephone (100 and 102). In the example of FIG. 2, event indicator 50 is associated with an event of an actress entering a scene wearing a particular dress. In this case, either of the two users watching the television show of movie can interact with the alert 52 using any of the means discussed herein. If the first user interacts with alert 52, then the first user's companion device 100 will be configured to show the various buttons of the menu for the user to interact with. For example, area 104 of companion device 100 shows five buttons for the user to buy the dress depicted in the movie (buy dress), get information about the dress (dress info), shop for similar dresses via the internet (shop for similar dresses), tell a friend about the dress (tell a friend) via social networking instant messaging, e-mail, etc., or post a comment about the dress (post). If the second user interacts with alert 52 as discussed above, then companion computing device 102 for the second user will show a set of buttons for a menu on region 106 of companion device 102. The second user can choose to get more information about the actress (actress info), view other movies or television shows that the actress was involved in (view other titles with actress), tell a friend about this particular actress and/or show (tell a friend) or post a comment (post). In one embodiment, both devices will display the same options for the same alert 52 (if the devices have the same capabilities). In one embodiment, the first user and the second user will each have their own user profile known by the relevant computing device powering interface 10. Based on that profile, and the code and content associated with event indicator 50, the computing device will know which buttons and menu options to provide to the relative companion device for the particular user. The relevant code and content will be provided to the particular companion device in order to program the companion device to provide the interaction depicted in FIG. 2. Note that the code and content displayed to the user may also be based on other factors such as the capability of the devices (e.g., more multimedia-rich options might be shown to a laptop device as opposed to a mobile phone device), the time/date/location of the users/devices, etc., not just by the user profile. In some cases, there may not be a profile for the person viewing the content (paras. [0037]-[0039]).” 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 Pardue, Fuzell-Casey and Mittal to allow for a graphical user interface displayed by the first screen device to be modified based on a context of the at least one media item. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the appropriate information to be properly displayed in the required location; i.e. the proper screen, in order to carry out the user requested functionality.
Regarding claim 20, the combination as stated above discloses the method of claim 19, and further discloses further comprising: receiving, at the second screen device via the digital content system application, additional instructions that trigger additional modifications of the control graphical user interface based on playback of the at least one media item moving past the introduction portion of the at least one media item; and modifying the control graphical user interface based on the received additional instructions (Fuzell-Casey, para. [0068]. “Once a track has been selected to play, when that track has finished playing, the next track in the collection may be played [emphasis added by Examiner].” That is, if a track is the last track in a collection, i.e. there is not a next track, then obviously the system may determine that no track should be played. In this scenario, the system would enter a state where music playing was paused, and as such the pause button would revert to a play button. Thus, when the track ended, i.e. moved “past the introduction portion of the media item,” the button would be instructed to change, i.e. “the control graphical user interface [would be modified] based on the received additional instructions.” This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 19.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection in view of Law.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 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 January 23, 2026