DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Garmark being used in the current rejection. See the new rejection below.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 2012/059961 to Zhou (“Zhou”) in view of US Patent 11,792,470 to Elcock (“Elcock) and US PG Pub 2015/0199122 to Garmark (“Garmark”).
Regarding claim 1, “A streaming media playing method” reads on the method/system of transferring streaming media content (abstract) disclosed by Zhou and represented in Fig. 1.
As to “comprising: detecting a second media playing device meeting a first condition, in response to that a first media playing device is playing streaming media content” Zhou discloses (¶0012, ¶0030, ¶0033) that the server and terminal device has database for rules to predict media transfer where the database includes information like whether a display device is currently being used to provide media content, which version of the media player is used, etc.; device 1 and device 2 are locally connected to each other through local area network, where a session transfer is suggested to a device that is detected in the same local network as represented in Figs. 8-9.
As to “establishing a trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device for realizing data transmission” Zhou discloses (¶0033) that the session is establish by pairing two local devices that connect to each other through local area network prior to data transmission as represented in Fig. 9.
As to “transferring the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing, in response to that the second media playing device meeting the first condition is detected” Zhou discloses (¶0002, ¶0012, ¶0030, ¶0033) that when the device 2 is detected within the same network as device 1, the ongoing session of media is transferred to said device 2 from device 1 as represented in Figs. 8-9.
Zhou meets all the limitations of the claim except “the first condition comprising not playing a media file; and establishing a trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device for realizing data transmission.” However, Elcock discloses (4:20-48; claims 1 and 11) that the system transfers a current media content experience from a first media device to a second media device that is in an off state which results in the selected second media device going to an on state and presenting the transferred media content as represented in Figs. 2 and 3; (3:49-4:12) the communication link is established between two media devices before transferring the media from one device to the second device as represented in Fig. 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhou’s system by detecting that one media device is in available/off state and not playing any media content as taught by Elcock in order to confirm that the device is available to play the media content by providing an automated system that provides a user with the ability to view the same media experience in different locations/devices without having to implement cumbersome manual steps each time this feature is used (Elcock – 1:55-59).
Combination of Zhou and Elcock meets all the limitations of the claim except “wherein establishing a trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device for realizing data transmission, comprises at least one of: establishing automatically the trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device, in a case that the first media playing device and the second media playing device are under the same account; or establishing the trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device based on a verification code, in a case that the first media playing device and the second media playing device are under different accounts.” However, Garmark discloses (¶0100) that a user profile database including account information for a specific user of the first electronic device and the second electronic device; (¶0067-¶0068, ¶0078) the first electronic device and the second electronic device are connected to the same user account on the server system, where the transfer of media content stream from the first electronic device to the second electronic device occurs more quickly and more reliably as represented in Figs. 1 and 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhou and Elcock’s systems by establishing a relationship between two devices under the same account as taught by Garmark in order to transfer media content between devices under the same account more quickly and more reliably (Garmark - ¶0068).
Regarding claim 2, “The method according to claim 1, wherein before transferring the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing, the method further comprises: determining that a second condition is met based on at least one of a device state, a spatial position relationship and a historical behavior, wherein the device state refers to a playing state of the second media playing device; the spatial position relationship refers to a spatial position relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device; and the historical behavior is configured to indicate a behavior of whether a user transfers a media file played by the first media playing device” Zhou discloses (¶0020-¶0021, ¶0030, ¶0033) that the session transfer is suggested to nearby devices and to devices that have been used for transfer before according to recorded statistics as represented in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, “The method according to claim 2, wherein it is determined that the second condition is met, in response to meeting at least one of: a current playing state of the second media playing device being an idle state; the first media playing device and the second media playing device being within a same spatial range; and there being a behavior of the user transferring the media file played by the first media playing device in the historical behavior” Zhou discloses (¶0020-¶0021, ¶0030, ¶0033) that the session transfer is suggested to nearby devices and to devices that have been used for transfer before according to recorded statistics as represented in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 4, “The method according to claim 1, wherein meeting the first condition comprises at least one of: using at least one of a same account and a same network as the first media playing device for data transmission; and supporting adopting a secure transmission protocol with a security level higher than a level threshold to perform data transmission” Zhou discloses (¶0012, ¶0030, ¶0033) that device 1 and device 2 are locally connected to each other through local area network, where a session transfer is suggested to a device that is detected in the same local network as represented in Figs. 8-9.
Regarding claim 5, “The method according to claim 1, wherein before transferring the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing, the method further comprises: displaying prompt information and determining that an instruction of a user confirming to transfer the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing is received, wherein the prompt information is configured to prompt the user whether to transfer the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing” Zhou discloses (¶0013, ¶0031, ¶0033) that before transferring media to the device within the same local network, the user is provided with an option to accept/reject session transfer as represented in Fig. 7 (element 312).
Regarding claim 6, “The method according to claim 5, further comprising: saving a historical behavior of the user deciding whether to transfer the streaming media content to the second media playing device for playing based on the prompt information” Zhou discloses (¶0021, ¶0028) that the system records statistics of previous transfers in the database as represented in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 7, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Elcock discloses (5:40-6:9) that the computer system is implemented using non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon executed by the processor.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Elcock and Garmark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 11,860,938 to Strober (“Strober”).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Zhou, Elcock, and Garmark meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method according to claim 1, wherein the verification code is displayed on the second media playing device, and input into the first media playing device.” However, Strober discloses (5:29-62) that the mobile device and the display device establish a connection between them by displaying the sync code on the display device which is entered into the mobile phone as represented in Fig. 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhou, Elcock, and Garmark’s system by displaying the verification code on the display device and inputting the code into the mobile device as taught by Strober in order to control a television or other display remotely using the personal computing device (Strober – 1:47-49).
Furthermore, Examiner takes the position that claim 14 is meant to further narrow claim 1. The limitation is optional and not positively required since the preceding limitation of claim 1 (wherein establishing a trust relationship between the first media playing device and the second media playing device…comprises at least one of: …the first media playing device and the second media playing device are under the same account; or …first media playing device and the second media playing device based on a verification code…under different accounts) requires to find only one of the two elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub 2024/0296007 to Zhang
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights