DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to a communication made on 03/09/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for this application.
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the non-final action on 07/20/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks on page 6-10, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 under 103 have been considered and regarding the amended feature of “recording display output and audio output generated by the application while the application is in standby” are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kondo et al. (US 2023/0418539) in view of Van OS et al. (US 2022/0060775 A1), and further in view of Kawashima et al. (US 2022/0121408 A1).
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) 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2023/0418539), hereinafter “Kondo” in view of Van OS et al. (US 2022/0060775 A1), hereinafter “Van”, and further in view of Kawashima et al. (US 2022/0121408 A1), hereinafter “Kawashima”.
With respect to claim 1, Kondo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
determining that an application has lost priority while the application is transmitting output (¶0036, ¶0157, and ¶0185, teaches the output of the contents can be switched according to the output order (i.e. priority) of the contents…switching of contents is performed on the application side, it is necessary to output OFF and ON of the APP request… “the tab content C” is at the lowest level, “the tab content C” is switched to “the tab content A” at the highest level, wherein tab content C lost priority when application is transmitting output);
assigning standby status to the application (¶0042 and ¶0088, teaches Applications A to C are stored in the display control device 10 in advance…the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby) or displayed).
However, Kondo remain silent on recording display output generated by the application.
Van discloses recording display output generated by the application (¶0195, teaches at least one of the data streams is associated with the first application (e.g., one of the data streams is a data stream of video or audio output by the first application), ¶0222, teaches initiate recording of one or more data streams that include at least one data stream generated by the first application, ¶0230, teaches the record request specifies a request for recording event information of the first application).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s output of the content with recording display output generated by the application of Van, in order to enable seamless continuation and displayed while the application resumes (Van).
However, Kondo in view of Van remain silent on display output and audio output generated by the application while the application is in standby, modifying, in response to a request from the application, the output generated by the application, replaying content in response to determining that the application has priority instead of direct application output.
Kawashima discloses display output and audio output generated by the application while the application is in standby (¶0020, teaches content is presented in response to a content presentation request from the application. That is, the display content (i.e. display output) is displayed in response to a display request from the application, and the voice output content (i.e. audio output) is output in response to a voice output request from the application. In this case, when a content presentation request is generated from another application while the content of one application is being presented, arbitration is performed as to which content is to be presented with priority, ¶0024, teaches the application storage unit can store (i.e. record) the application that generates the content presentation request, ¶0028, teaches a plurality of applications A to B are stored (i.e. recorded) in advance in the application storage unit 15. When one or more content presentation requests are generated, the applications A to B interrupt and output a presentation request indicating the presentation target, the area, the zone, and the content to the control unit 14, ¶0096, teaches maintains the attenuation of the audio output of the content of the application A, outputs the “standby command” to the application B (corresponding to the arbitration control procedure and the arbitration control process at t11), and interrupts and holds the audio output of the content of the application B to be on standby);
modifying, in response to a request from the application, the output generated by the application (¶0024, teaches the application storage unit can store (i.e. record) the application that generates the content presentation request, ¶0028, teaches a plurality of applications A to B are stored (i.e. recorded) in advance in the application storage unit 15. When one or more content presentation requests are generated, the applications A to B interrupt and output a presentation request indicating the presentation target, the area, the zone, and the content to the control unit 14, ¶0083, teaches determine whether the content that lost the arbitration is on standby or cancels, and changes (i..e modifying) the state of the request (at S2));
replaying content in response to determining that the application has priority instead of direct application output (¶0020, teaches content is presented in response to a content presentation request from the application. That is, the display content (i.e. display output) is displayed in response to a display request from the application, and the voice output content (i.e. audio output) is output in response to a voice output request from the application. In this case, when a content presentation request is generated from another application while the content of one application is being presented, arbitration is performed as to which content is to be presented with priority, ¶0098, teaches when the MM device 11 arbitrates the content of the application B to win and arbitrates the content of the application A to lose, the MM device 11 outputs an “attenuator command” to the application A (at t15), maintains to attenuate the audio output of the content of the application A, and outputs “output command” to the application B (at t16), and restarts the audio output of the content of the application B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s content output (i.e. output) includes both the concept of content display and audio output, and output content includes the concept of both displayed content and audio output content in view of Van’s recording of one or more data streams that include at least one data stream generated by the first application with display output and audio output generated by the application while the application is in standby, modifying, in response to a request from the application, the output generated by the application, replaying content in response to determining that the application has priority instead of direct application output of Kawashima, in order to allow users to review of experience content that would otherwise have been missed and improving the user experience when the application regains priority (Kawashima).
For claim 8, it is a method claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
For claim 15, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the application has priority in response to deactivation of output transmission (Kondo, ¶0088, ¶0133, ¶0185, teaches the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby or deactivation) or displayed (i.e. output transmission)…an APP request is made, and areas to be arbitrated are selected in descending order of area priority…“the tab content C” is at the lowest level, “the tab content C” is switched to “the tab content A” at the highest level, wherein content C is deactivated and content A has the priority).
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the recording to the application (Kondo, ¶0046, teaches when an APP request is output from an application, the content of another application is already being displayed, i.e., the APP requests from two different applications are in active at the same time, Kawashima, ¶0024, teaches the application storage unit can store (i.e. record) the application that generates the content presentation request, ¶0028, teaches a plurality of applications A to B are stored (i.e. recorded) in advance in the application storage unit 15. When one or more content presentation requests are generated, the applications A to B interrupt and output a presentation request indicating the presentation target, the area, the zone, and the content to the control unit 14).
Claim(s) 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Van in view of Kawashima, and further in view of Panchaksharaiah et al. (US 2020/0413126 A1), hereinafter “Panchaksharaiah”.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, however, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima remain silent on wherein the modifying includes deleting all but a first second of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes deleting all but a first second of the recording (¶0025, ¶0048, and ¶0051 teaches change (i.e. modify) a deletion classifier associated with a recorded media asset… initial deletion classifier 156 and final deletion classifier 158 may be “a user has consumed a portion of recorded media asset that is not an entirety of the recorded media asset,” “O.K. to Delete” and “Do Not Delete” respectively, wherein O.K. to delete is deleting all and do not delete is first second of the recording… recorded media assets associated with “Do Not Delete” delete classifier with one type of indicator (e.g., a red dot alongside the recorded media assets) and identifiers corresponding to recorded media assets associated with “O.K. to Delete” delete classifier with another type of indicator (e.g., a yellow dot alongside the recorded media assets).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Van’s in view of Kawashima’s adjusting system with deleting all but a first second of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to retain minimal necessary data, enhance privacy and compliance and optimize storage and resource usage (Panchaksharaiah).
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Kondo in view of Van in view of Kawashima, and further in view of Panchaksharaiah discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the deleting is in response to assigning inactive status to the application (Kondo, ¶0088, teaches the content state is either active/inactive (i.e. standby or deactivation) or displayed (i.e. output transmission), Panchaksharaiah,¶0051, teaches delete recorded media assets that are associated with a specific deletion classifier (e.g., “Recommended to Delete”) ).
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Kondo in view of Van in view of Kawashima discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1. However, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima remain silent on wherein the modifying includes maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording (¶0017, teaches media asset associated with the given recorded media asset being scheduled to be available (i.e. maintain) within some pre-defined time period (i.e. latest 5 seconds)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Van’s in view of Kawashima’s system with maintaining only a latest 5 seconds of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to ensure efficient memory and storage usage (Panchaksharaiah).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, however, Kondo in view of Van, and further in view of Kawashima remain silent on wherein the modifying includes deleting all content of the recording.
Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the modifying includes deleting all content of the recording (¶0051, delete recorded media assets that are associated with a specific deletion classifier (e.g., “Recommended to Delete”)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo’s in view of Van’s in view of Kawashima’s system with modifying includes deleting all content of the recording of Panchaksharaiah, in order to optimize storage and system resources (Panchaksharaiah).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)270-0385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8.00-5.00pm.
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 5712703037. 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.
/G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2458
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights