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
2. This action is in response to the RCE filed on 07/22/2026. Claims 4 and 9 are canceled and claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2011/0074545) in view of Strober (US 2012/0272148).
Claim 1. Yamada discloses a method for providing remote media control, the method comprising:
providing for display, on a display of a first controller device (remote operation device including a display panel for displaying a predetermined operation screen) (abstract);
determining available media player devices from a plurality of media players having different media rendering capabilities ([0047], [0052]);
displaying, on the display of a first controller device, a user interface that includes one or more graphical user interface elements that provide information associated with the available media player devices ([0052], fig. 5);
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a media player device to process the at least a portion of the media content ([0053], [0058]);
sending one or more command messages to the media player device that cause the media player device to perform one or more operations to process the at least a portion of the media content, wherein the one or more operations include playing the at least the portion of the media content ([0059]-[0060]); and
receiving a state notification from a media player device, wherein the state notification is sent by the media player device to at least the first controller device and the state notification indicates changing a state of the media content ([0010]-[0013]).
Yamada does not explicitly disclose on a display of a first controller device, stream of media content, wherein the stream of media content is one or more of video content stream, or audio content stream, wherein the user interface is a common user interface that is independent of a platform-specific application and operates on different operating systems and platforms executed by different types of computing devices.
However, Strober discloses on a display of a first controller device, media content, wherein the stream of media content is one or more of video content stream, or audio content stream, wherein the user interface is a common user interface that is independent of a platform-specific application and operates on different operating systems and platforms executed by different types of computing devices ([0024]-[0026]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature in Yamada. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user selection of different media players and operate a television set or other display remotely from a personal computing device.
Claim 2. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein the user interface comprises a graphical user interface element that when selected allows input of another media player device in addition to the available media player devices ([0078], fig. 5).
Claim 3. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein determining the available media player devices comprises determining one or more types of media content individual ones of the available media player devices are capable of rendering (fig. 5).
Claim 5. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein sending the one or more command messages to the media player device includes one or more commands to perform at least one of changing a type of content being rendered by the media player device or changing current media content being rendered by the media player device to the media content ([0089]-[0090]).
Claim 7. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses comprising: determining meta-information about the media player device, wherein the meta-information identifies one or more of controls or operations supported by the media player device; and rendering one or more of the controls or the operations within the user interface based, at least in part, on the meta-information ([0065]-[0067]).
Claim 8. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more user interface elements are associated with one or more available media operations supported by the media player device, wherein the one or more available media operations include one or more of a load operation, a play operation, a pause operation, a stop operation, and a fast-forward operation (In the content reproducing operation screen P3, a replay icon I3a, and a stop icon I3b or the like are shown as an icons I used for the content reproduction operation.) ([0071], fig. 8).
Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 represent the system and medium of claims 1-3, 5 and 7-8, and are rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 21. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Strober further discloses wherein rendering, via the user interface, one or more controls is performed without pairing the first controller device with the media player device ([0026]-[0027]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user selection of different media players and operate a television set or other display remotely from a personal computing device.
Claim 22. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, wherein sending one or more command messages to the media player device is performed without pairing the first controller with the media player device ([0029]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user selection of different media players and operate a television set or other display remotely from a personal computing device.
5. Claims 6, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2011/0074545) in view of Strober (US 2012/0272148) and further in view of Marino, Jr. et al. (US 2014/0037107).
Claim 6. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to explicitly discloses wherein a state of the media player device is synchronized with the first controller device and one or more second controller devices.
However, Marino, Jr. discloses wherein a state of the media player device is synchronized with the first controller device and one or more second controller devices ([0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature in Yamada. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate user operation of the system.
Claims 14 and 19 represent the system and medium of claim 6, and are rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 07/22/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of new ground of rejection(s).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights