DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-14are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amine et al. (US 2014/0351870) in view of Winograd et al. (US 2024/0348579).
Claim 1 and 12, Amine teaches A media receiver (103) for receiving and outputting media content and providing a plurality of different interactive services associated with the output media content (i.e. Netflix, amazon prime, etc.), the media receiver being controllable by a user by means of a remote control (102, 105, 106) arranged to transmit to the media receiver one or more interactive service selection signals (i.e. selecting content and services), each of which is transmitted in response to a corresponding predetermined user action (i.e. dedicated button), wherein the number of different interactive service selection signals is fewer than the number of different interactive services (i.e. one selection, Netflix), the media receiver including a mapping function for mapping a received interactive service selection signal to a selected one of a plurality of virtual user inputs (i.e. applications execution) corresponding to a selected one of the different interactive services (i.e. Netflix, amazon, etc.), such that a corresponding available one of the interactive services is activated (p. 0040).
Amine is silent regarding the specific feature of:
“the media receiver arranged to receive a program stream including media content together with metadata and/or program code defining a plurality of different interactive services, each of which is associated with the media content, the media receiver”.
Winograd teaches regarding the specific feature of:
“the media receiver arranged to receive a program stream including media content together with metadata (i.e. metadata) and/or program code (i.e. watermarks) defining a plurality of different interactive services, each of which is associated with the media content, the media receiver” (p. 0003, 0040-0041, 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided interactive services as taught by Winograd to the system of Amine to provide interactive services associated with the content (p. 0059).
Claim 2, Amine teaches the media receiver of claim 1, wherein the predetermined user action comprises pressing a key or button on the remote control (i.e. dedicated button for service) (p. 0040).
Claim 3, Amine teaches the media receiver of claim 2, wherein the remote control includes one or more interactive services selection buttons or keys corresponding to one or more respective interactive service selection signals (i.e. dedicated button for service) (p. 0040).
Claim 4, Amine teaches the media receiver of claim 3, wherein the remote control includes a single interactive services selection button or key (i.e. Netflix dedicated button) and the mapping function maps the corresponding received interactive service selection signal to a selected one of a plurality of different interactive services (i.e. dedicated button mapped to Netflix) (p. 0040).
Claim 8, Amine teaches the media receiver of claim 1, where the mapping is based on the availability of the interactive services (i.e. dedicated buttons for available service) (p. 0040).
Claim 13 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a non-transitory computer program comprising program code arranged” to perform the steps of claim 13.
Amine teaches “a non-transitory computer program comprising program code arranged” to perform the steps of claim 13 (p. 0112).
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amine et al. (US 2014/0351870) in view of Winograd et al. (US 2024/0348579), and further in view of Emmanuel et al. (US 2022/0329898).
Claim 6, Amine is silent regarding the media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on contextual information available at the media receiver.
Emmanuel teaches the media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on contextual information available at the media receiver (i.e. users likes or dislikes) (p. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided context mapping as taught by Emmanuel to the system of Amine to allow for intelligent mapping of buttons (p. 0062).
Claim 7, Amine is silent regarding The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on a media service currently output by the media receiver.
Emmanuel teaches The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on a media service currently output by the media receiver (i.e. point in video where exited last) (p. 0131-0132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided context mapping as taught by Emmanuel to the system of Amine to allow for intelligent mapping of buttons (p. 0062).
Claim 9, Amine is silent regarding The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on timing information.
Emmanuel teaches The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on timing information (i.e. point in video where exited last) (p. 0131-0132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided context mapping as taught by Emmanuel to the system of Amine to allow for intelligent mapping of buttons (p. 0062).
Claim 10, Amine is silent regarding The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on user preference or behaviur.
Emmanuel teaches The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on user preference or behaviur (i.e. users likes or dislikes) (p. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided context mapping as taught by Emmanuel to the system of Amine to allow for intelligent mapping of buttons (p. 0062).
Claim 11, Amine is silent regarding The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping function comprises a machine learning algorithm.
Emmanuel teaches The media receiver of claim 1, wherein the mapping function comprises a machine learning algorithm (p. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided context mapping as taught by Emmanuel to the system of Amine to allow for intelligent mapping of buttons (p. 0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-14have 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6-14 are rejected.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 1/15/2026