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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 6-7 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are presently pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to Claims 1 and 7, a response is considered necessary for several of applicant's arguments since references Rao and Hannes will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Rao and Hanne references (see Remarks, pg. 8), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant attacks the Hannes reference, arguing that Hannes ‘merely indicate[s] that a system is linked to a single system to share profiles’ and seemingly characterizes the Hannes references as ‘a concept of multiusers sharing a screen’. Applicant further argues that the Rao reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Hannes. The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the Final Rejection mailed out on 03 December 2025 (hereinafter the Final) relies on the Rao reference as the Primary reference that is to be modified by the Hannes reference. Rao is relied upon to teach a system where first user device (see Rao [Fig. 1: device 102]) that may select a share option so as to provide to a separate client device (see Rao [Fig. 1: clients 115 across a network 130]) a message with a link and identifier of a program that is being viewed on the first user device, wherein recipient client device may utilize the message to retrieve the indicated programming (see Rao [0016-22]). Hannes [0007] specifically states that the system is directed to allowing friends to contemporaneously view video programs on different television/devices (i.e., similarly as with the system of Rao). Hannes is specifically introduced to teach that the client devices of Rao could be modified to be devices that may utilize artificial intelligence (where the Final, pg. 9 and Hannes [0009-12] and [0038]) and wherein the claimed content casting applications may be respective reside in respective devices (see Final, pg. 9 and Hannes [0006], [0032], and [0040] which teach that client devices – much like device 102 or clients 115 of Rao – may comprise a variety of different devices that may be integrated or combined – i.e., separated between a display device and a STB/etc.). As such, the combination of Rao and Hannes discloses and teaches the underlying architecture of the claimed invention (i.e., a plurality of playback locations comprising at least some display device and ‘artificial intelligence device’), and the features of providing casting information in the form of a MIME message from one playback location to another playback location so as to allow both playback locations to concurrently view a program.
With respect to the newly added limitations, Hyeon et al. (US 2015/0048493 A1) is newly introduced to address those new limitations. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites ”transmit the first cast message to the another artificial intelligence device through a social network application for playing the first content in the another display device via the content casting application set in the another artificial intelligence device” which lacks an antecedent basis. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
Rao (US 2016/0192012 A1) (of record hereinafter Rao), in view of Hannes et al. (US 2014/0325541 A1) (of record, hereinafter Hannes), and further in view of Hyeon et al. (US 2016/0048493 A1) (hereinafter Hyeon).
Regarding Claim 1, Rao discloses a device [Figs. 1-2: device 102] comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive first content information and first content provider information about first content being played back in a display device, [0018: user could be viewing a program via a media player (where the display device would be implicit) and while viewing may choose to suggest the program to friends/family; 0020-21: device 102 may have software and hardware to render video for playback, identify the video, and communicate with other users; 0022-26: media identifier 110 may include program identifier and identifying information to specify the application/program needed to interpret the rest of the identifier, and where the identifiers may include any other information] and to receive a second cast message from another device via a social network application; [Figs. 1-2; 0023: where message may be MIME type; 0018-19, 0034: message may be transmitted from a first client 102 to recipient client 115 via some social media service (where it would be implicitly understood that each device in the system may respectively send and receive signals to and from a plurality of other clients)]
and a processor configured to: generate a first cast message including the first content information and the first content provider information, [Figs. 1-2; 0018, 0031: shared content may be messed via any sort of email, text, platform messaging, social media application and the like, where the message includes the media identifier 110]
set a content casting application, to which the first cast message is to be transferred, to a multipurpose internet mail extensions (MIME) type of the first cast message, [0023: message may be MIME type] and
transmit the first cast message to the another device through a social network application for playing the first content in the another display device via the content casting application, [Figs. 1-2; 0018, 0031: shared content may be messaged via any sort of email, text, platform messaging, social media application and the like, where the message includes the media identifier 110; 0019: client 102 may transmit messaging/social media to other clients 115; 0030-37: where recipient clients may receive message and interact with/click an icon or link to retrieve the content by using the identifier 110 to determine and obtain the appropriate viewing application and to stream in real-time or download the identified for later viewing the shared content (i.e., content is displayed via some ‘casting’ application)]
obtain a user input for the second cast message from the social network application, [Rao – Figs. 1-2; 0023: where message may be MIME type; 0018-19, 0034: message may be transmitted from a first client 102 to recipient client 115 via some social media service; 0030-37: where recipient clients may receive message and interact with/click an icon or link to retrieve the content by using the identifier 110 to determine and obtain the appropriate viewing application and to stream in real-time or download the identified for later viewing the shared content]
execute the content casting application specified in a MIME type of the second cast message in response to the user input, [0022-26: media identifier 110 may include program identifier and identifying information to specify the application/program needed to interpret the rest of the identifier (content casting application), and where the identifiers may include any other information]
transfer the second cast message to the content casting application, [0030-37: where recipient clients may receive message and interact with/click an icon or link to retrieve the content by using the identifier 110 to determine and obtain the appropriate viewing application and to stream in real-time or download the identified for later viewing the shared content using said application] and
transmit second content information and second content provider information included in the second cast message to the display device via the content casting application. [0030-37: where recipient clients may receive message and interact with/click an icon or link to retrieve the content by using the identifier 110 to determine and obtain the appropriate viewing application and to stream in real-time or download the identified for later viewing the shared content]
Rao fails to explicitly disclose an artificial intelligence device, and the content casting application set in another artificial intelligence.
Hannes, in analogous art, teaches an artificial intelligence device. [0009-12, 0038: devices that allow users to invite/share information to concurrently view programming may utilize artificial intelligence (AI) software] and
the content casting application set in another artificial intelligence. [Hannes – Fig. 1; 0006, 0032, 0040: devices in such concurrent viewing systems may be embodied as a plurality of display and control devices, including TVs (display device) and STBs (another device), etc., and any other combination of devices thereof (where it is widely understood that such devices may be used in combination – such as a TV paired with a STB)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Rao with the teachings of Hannes to specify an AI device as it is understood that AI may be integrated into devices to more intelligently provide relevant programming options and suggestions. [Hannes – 0012]
Rao and Hannes fail to explicitly disclose to request the first content information and the first content provider information about the first content being played back to the display device through a content casting application, and receive, via the communication interface, the first content information and the first content provider information through the content casting application from the display device.
Hyeon, in analogous art, teaches to request the first content information and the first content provider information about the first content being played back to the display device through a content casting application, and receive, via the communication interface, the first content information and the first content provider information through the content casting application from the display device. [Figs. 1, 6-7; 0018, 0053: content information may be metadata including information related to the content, including title of the content and a channel/source of the content; 0050-52, 0056-60: in response to a signal requesting transmission of content information from user apparatus 100 (i.e., the casting application/artificial intelligence devices of Rao and Hannes), display 200 may acquire metadata about program being output and transmit said metadata to the apparatus 100]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Rao with the teachings of Hannes to request and then receive content and provider information by the casting application to/from the display device in order to reduce a user’s inconvenience of directly inputting information about a content that the user is viewing when writing and sending a message (such as the invite casting message of Rao and Hannes above) regarding the viewed content. [Hyeon – 0005-12, 0070]
Regarding Claim 2, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Rao discloses wherein the first content provider information includes Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) information of a content provider application of a first content provider. [Rao – Fig. 1; 0022-26: media identifier 110 may include program identifier and identifying information to specify the application/program needed to interpret the rest of the identifier (i.e., content provider application), and where the identifiers may include any other information]
Regarding Claim 3, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 2, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Rao discloses wherein the first cast message includes the URI information of the content provider application included in the first content provider information in a body portion of the first cast message.[Rao – Fig. 1; 0021, 0031-33: identifiers may be provided in some message body that may be clickable to retrieve the associated content and applications]
Regarding Claim 4, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Rao discloses wherein the MIME type includes information about a content casting-only application to which the first cast message is to be transferred. , [0023: message may be MIME type; 0034: messages 214 may be sent to a specified recipient]
Regarding Claim 5, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Rao discloses, wherein the processor is configured to provide a user interface for selecting the social network application to be used to transmit the first cast message using a share sheet functionality provided in a predetermined operating system. [Rao – 0018, 0034: first client may interact with some messaging application or service and interact with some interface to select a messaging or social media service in which to transmit the identifier 110]
Regarding Claim 6, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Rao and Hannes disclose wherein the first content in the first cast message is playing in the another display device via a content casting application set in the another artificial intelligence device, [Rao – 0020-21, 0035-37: recipient media player devices may utilize appropriate applications to receive content messages to allow viewers to obtain the shared content item to stream content in real time, download for later viewing, and/or for later viewing and recording; Hannes – Fig. 1; 0009-12, 0038: devices that allow users to invite/share information to concurrently view programming may utilize artificial intelligence (AI) software; 0006, 0032, 0040: devices in such concurrent viewing systems may be embodied as a plurality of display and control devices, including TVs and STBs, and any other computing devices] and
wherein the another display device is a device paired with the another artificial intelligence device to transmit and receive data with each other through the content casting application. [Rao – Fig. 1; 0019-020: media player 102 may transmit identifiers etc., to various placeshifting devices 132 or other media player clients 115, where such devices may be embodied as PCs, media players, and other consumer devices; Hannes – Fig. 1; 0006, 0032, 0040: devices in such concurrent viewing systems may be embodied as a plurality of display and control devices, including TVs and STBs, etc., and any other combination of devices thereof (where it is widely understood that such devices may be used in combination – such as a TV paired with a STB)]
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites a method comprising steps describing the functions of the device of Claim 1. As such, Claim 7 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 8, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 7, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 8 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 9 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 7, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 10 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 7, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 11 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon disclose all of the limitations of Claim 7, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 12 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409