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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 03 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon references (see Remarks, pgs. 11-12), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant attacks the Rao reference as ‘not streaming or otherwise providing content of the first client (102) to the second client (115) via registry (120)’, arguing that ‘the content provided in Rao’s steps 213 and 219 are not synchronized’. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ‘streaming or providing content via ‘registry 120’ or ‘synchronized steps 213 and 219’ ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Claims at present require obtaining first content information and information about a content provider of the first content, generating a message including those two pieces of information in a MIME type message for casting the first content information to a second display device (it should be noted that there is a distinction between casting the content information and casting the content itself). At best, the claims merely require the first content information to be provided to the second display device via a second casting application, and does not seem to otherwise indicate or preclude any other particular details of the ‘casting’. It is noted Rao [0007] and [0037] at least that the disclosed content may be streamed in some manner to client devices. Furthermore, it is noted that nowhere in the claims are there any timing constraints between the delivered content to the claimed first AI/display device and second AI/display device. Even arguendo that such a limitation was necessarily recited, Rao [0016] specifically notes that media identifier sharing as disclosed allow uses to share in a live viewing experience, implying a concurrent or simultaneous viewing experience.
Applicant further argues that ‘Rao’s registry (120) does not send a request to the first client (120)’ (see Remarks, pgs. 11-12). 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 should be noted that Hyeon was relied upon for the features of explicitly requesting the first content information and the information about the content provider of the first content. It is further noted that Applicant's arguments with respect to the Hannes and Hyeon references (see Remarks, pg. 12) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the claims stand rejected in view of Rao, Hannes, and Hyeon.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added) “transmitting a request to the first display device for…information about first content that is being played in the first display device”. Claim 1 subsequently recites “receiving…the first content information”. In light of the Specification and for the purposes of Compact Prosecution, it will be assumed these two terms are synonymous and will be interpreted as such. However, consistency of terminology is strongly encouraged.
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added) “transmitting a request to the first display device for…information about first content that is being played in the first display device” which is grammatically improper. The Examiner suggests amending the claim language to replace the term ‘in’ with the alternative preposition ‘on’.
Claim 7 suffers the same deficiencies as Claim 1 above.
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 1-5 and 7-11 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) (of record, hereinafter Hyeon).
Regarding Claim 1, Rao discloses a first device [Figs. 1-2: device 102] comprising:
a communication interface; [0020-21: device 102 may have software and hardware to render video for playback, identify the video, and communicate with other users] and
a processor connected to the communication interface and configured to execute a first content casting application with a first 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; wherein execution of the first content casting application comprises:
transmitting a request for each of:
information about first content that is being played in the first display device, [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; 0032-34: client may make a request for content identifier which may be subsequently used to share the program viewing experience with other users] and
other information about the first content that is being played in the first display device; [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; 0032-34: client may make a request for content identifier which may be subsequently used to share the program viewing experience with other users] and
in response to the request:
receiving the first content information and the information about the content provider of the first content, [0017: media player receives the identifier for a particular player in any manner; 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]
wherein the execution of the first content casting application further comprises:
generating a first cast message that includes the first content information and the information about the content provider of the first content; [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]
setting a multipurpose internet mail extension (MIME) type of the first cast message, [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] the MIME type configured to enable a second device to execute a second content casting application for casting the first content information to a second display device; [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)] and
transferring, via a social network application, the first cast message in accordance with the MIME type to the second device to instruct the second device to execute the second content casting application and to cast the first content information to the second display device. [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)]
Rao fails to explicitly disclose the first and second devices are artificial intelligence (AI) devices.
Hannes, in analogous art, teaches artificial intelligence (AI) devices. [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 (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 transmitting a request to the first display device for information about a content provider of the first content that is being played in the first display device; in response to the request: receiving, from the first display device through the first content casting application, the first content information and the information about the content provider of the first content. (Emphasis on the particular elements of the limitation not explicitly disclosed by Rao and Hannes – particularly where the request for the content and content provider information are requested to and received from the first display device, and specifically requesting/receiving information about the content provider of the first content).
Hyeon, in analogous art, teaches transmitting a request to the first display device for information about a content provider of the first content that is being played in the first display device; in response to the request: receiving, from the first display device through the first content casting application, the first content information and the information about the content provider of the first content. [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 information about the content provider of the first content 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 information about the content provider of the first content 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 execution of the first content casting application further comprises providing a user interface to the first display device for selecting the social network application to be used to transmit the first cast message, the user interface 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 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights