DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on October 9th 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that Rashid does not teach receiving an input from device 14b and provide streaming content to device 14a (pg. 9). Examiner does not necessarily disagree with applicant, however this is not relevant to the amended feature regarding streaming content over the second connection because the Office Action does not rely on the two different devices for the first and second connection. Rashid clearly discloses a first and second connection for streaming content to a client because it teaches two sets of intermediate networks (item 18 Fig. 1). There is a first intermediate network between the broadcast server and storage system (paragraph 30, Fig. 1) and “another intermediate wide area network 18” (paragraph 46, emphasis added) that connects the client. Therefore, Rashied teaches or suggests the first and second connection. Also, Rashid teaches the computing device 14b (not relying on multiple devices), may itself have two different networks operating at different speeds (see paragraph 48). Therefore, applicant’s contention that the rejection is improper because Rashid does not disclose two separate devices (14a, 14b) wherein one communicates an input and the other receives content, is not persuasive because Rashid clearly teaches using two connections to receive and send data to a single device as explained above. See the detailed rejection for more information.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashid US 2013/0160063 A1 in view of Prupis et al. US 2014/0195598 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rashid discloses a client input device comprising a memory to store code and a processor coupled with the memory (client devices – Fig. 1 item 14, paragraph 47);
establish, via network, a first connection to a streaming server (connect to streaming server via network – Fig. 1, paragraphs 4-6, 25);
based on an input received at the client input device, generate an input message that requests the streaming service provide content to a streaming client device over a second connection separate from the first connection (request media stream – paragraphs 47-49; also see paragraphs 30, 46-48 and Fig. 1 which teaches the network may be the Internet or other dedicated networks, including “another” intermediate network, thus there are multiple connections between the streaming server and client devices – see Fig. 1);
transmit, via the first connection, the input message to the streaming server (send request to server – paragraph 52, Fig. 4B) to cause the streaming server to provide the content to the streaming client device over the second connection (multiple networks are used to in order to deliver the content to the client – Fig. 1, paragraphs 30, 46; Rashid also explicitly discloses a single client device may have both a first and second network connection having different speeds and switching modes as required based on network conditions – paragraph 48).
Rashid does not explicitly disclose, wherein the input message emulates an input event at a peripheral device of the streaming server but this is taught by Prupis as system including a client device and peripheral (abstract) wherein a server emulates the virtual peripheral device (paragraphs 49, 58, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rashid with the peripheral emulation taught by Prupis for the purpose of interacting with a server via a peripheral. Prupis teaches this allows the server to interact with the peripheral, or allows the client to interact with the server via the peripheral (see paragraphs 5, 7 and 47-49).
Regarding claim 2, Rashid discloses the input message request the streaming server to provide a first portion of the content to the streaming client device and provide a second portion of the content to the client input device (upon user request, portions of content are transmitted to both client devices 14a and 14b – see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 47-48).
Regarding claim 3, Rashid discloses cause the client input device to receive the second portion of the content from the streaming server (stream content to client devices – Fig. 1, paragraphs 47-48).
Regarding claim 4, Rashid discloses the first portion of content includes video generated in response to the input message and the second portion of the content includes audio generated in response to the input message (in response to user request, stream media content to both devices, both streams include at least video – which includes audio – or one stream can be audio only – see paragraphs 47-48 and Figs. 1-2; these streams are “generated” – see Fig. 3 step 206).
Regarding claim 5, Rashid discloses the peripheral device includes a virtual peripheral device of the streaming server … or a physical peripheral device connected to the client input device via a wired or wireless connection (the computing systems 14a and 14b are described as “conventional desktop” or “mobile computing devices” – see paragraphs 47-48). In the case of a conventional desktop, it would be inherent to have a physical peripheral device connected via wired or wireless connection; for a mobile computing device, although not inherent, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a peripheral could be connected via wired or wireless connection. This is merely the combination of a well-known element according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 6, Rashid discloses the input is received from the physical peripheral device connected to the client input device. As discussed above, the client input device may be a conventional desktop in which case a physical peripheral would be inherent. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a physical peripheral such as keyboard, mouse, etc. connected either wired or wirelessly in order to give input. This is merely the combination of a well-known element according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, Rashid does not explicitly disclose the input message emulates the input event at a virtual peripheral device of one or more virtual peripheral devices of the streaming server but this is taught by Prupis as discussed above (see rejection claim 1). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 8, it is a server claim that corresponds to the client device of claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding features are rejected for the same reasons. Rashid does not explicitly disclose process the message as a virtualized local input of a virtual peripheral device at the streaming server but this is taught by Prupis. Prupis teaches a system including a client device and peripheral (abstract) wherein a server emulates the virtual peripheral device (paragraphs 49, 58, Fig. 4). Thus, it processes input received form the client “as a virtualized local input” as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rashid with the peripheral emulation taught by Prupis for the purpose of interacting with a server via a peripheral. Prupis teaches this allows the server to interact with the peripheral, and allows the client to interact with the server via the peripheral (see paragraphs 5, 7 and 47-49).
Regarding claims 9-11, they corresponds to previously presented dependent claims 2-4 and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Rashid does not explicitly disclose the one or more virtual peripheral devices include at least one of a keyboard, a mouse, a game controller … but this is taught by Prupis (paragraph 49). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 13, Rashid does not explicitly disclose the message is processed based on a virtual device driver of the virtual peripheral device but Prupis teaches the virtual peripheral device as discussed above and it discloses using device drivers (abstract). Thus, Prupis explicitly teaches processing input/messages based on a virtual device driver (see paragraph 58). The motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim that corresponds to the systems of claims 1 and 8; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 16-19, they directly correspond to claims 2-5; so they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Rashid discloses the content provided to the streaming client device over the second connection is altered based on the input message (stream is converted – abstract, Figs. 2-3; the altered content is provided based on the request – paragraphs 47-48).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashid and Prupis in view of Shrey et al. US 2020/0019428 A1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rashid and Prupis discloses the input message is processed … at the streaming server (see above). The combination of Rashid and Prupis does not explicitly disclose using an event injection application programming interface but this is taught by Shrey. Shrey discloses a server receiving a request from a client device (abstract, Fig. 1A) and using event injection, and APIs (paragraph 95). 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 combination of Rashid and Prupis with the API and event injection taught by Shrey for the purpose of processing data. APIs are extremely well-known in the art, this is merely the combination of a routine technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heikkinen et al. US 12,273,403 B2 discloses selecting of a network interface from among multiple network interface/server pairs, and using multiple networks concurrently such as multipath protocols (abstract, Figs. 1-2, col. 5 ln. 44-50).
Watts et al. US 2022/0124136 A1 discloses a media streaming system that transmits different content portions to client devices (abstract).
An et al. US 2018/0260351 A1 discloses a virtual USB peripheral to emulate peripheral data connections (abstract, paragraph 12, Figs. 1-2).
Ram US 10,230,812 B1 discloses a media streaming server that can send different content portions to different clients devices (abstract, Fig. 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458