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 amendment filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321€ or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07€ and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, of U.S. Patent No. 10,031,647 in view of Yamada et al. (US 2011/0074545).
Instant Application 18/597472
US Patent No. 10,031,647
1. A method for providing remote media control, the method comprising: providing for display, on a display of a first controller device, media content, wherein the media content is one or more of video content, or audio content; determining available media player devices; 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 and an identification of media content that is currently being displayed by the available media player devices, 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; receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a media player device to process at least a portion of the media content; 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; and receiving a state notification from the 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.
7. The method of claim 1, further 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.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein displaying the user interface further comprises displaying a type of content that is being rendered by at least one of the available media player devices.
8. The method of claim 1, 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.
1. A method for providing remote media control comprising: receiving, at a media player from a first media controller device, instructions to process content at the media player; receiving first command messages for the media player from the first media controller device, the first command messages being input from the first media controller device using a user interface of the first media controller device; sending, to a second media controller device from the media player, a set of available media operations for processing the content; receiving second command messages, at the media player from the second media controller device, the second command messages generated using a user interface of the second media controller device, the second command messages being based on the set of available media operations; in response to receiving the second command messages, changing a media player status of the media player; in response to changing the media player status, sending state notifications that include time-sensitive information from the media player to the first media controller device and to the second media controller device, the state notifications triggering a synchronization of a state of the media player with the first media controller device and the second media controller device, and the media player being configured to simultaneously receive command messages from the first media controller device and the second media controller device; and receiving additional command messages from at least one of the first media controller device and the second media controller device in response to the state notifications.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface of the first media controller device and the user interface of the of the second media controller device allow for a selection of the media player from a plurality of media players.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, to at least one of the first media controller device and the second media controller device from the media player, content meta-data that defines how to represent the content.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first command messages and the second command messages are based on a set of operations supported by a particular type of the media player.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the state notifications include a volume status and a play status of the content.
Claim 1
Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant
application except “determining available media player devices and an identification of media content that is currently being displayed by the available media player devices, 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, Stober teaches determining available media player devices and an identification of media content that is currently being displayed by the available media player devices, 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]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to better focus on the available media player, within the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, to enable a user selection of different media players and operate a television set or other display remotely from a personal computing device.
Claim 8 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 6 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 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 ([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, media content, wherein the media content is one or more of video content, or audio content and an identification of media content that is currently being displayed by the available media player devices, 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 media content is one or more of video content, or audio content and an identification of media content that is currently being displayed by the available media player devices, 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 4. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein displaying the user interface further comprises displaying a type of content that is being rendered by at least one of the available media player devices ([0085]-[0087]).
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).
Claim 9. Yamada and Strober disclose the method of claim 1, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more user interface elements indicate one or more of a title of the media content, a length of the media content, or a source of the media content (fig. 5).
Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 represent the system and medium of claims 1-5 and 7-9, and are rejected along the same rationale.
6. 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 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of new ground of rejection(s).
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. 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