DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The RCE dated 4/1/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, which were necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8, 10-14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong, US 2013/0091524 in view of Sanghavi, US 2018/0367861.
Claims 1 and 10 and 16. Hong teaches a method and system comprising:
a memory device having instructions [Fig. 8, paras. 101-108] for:
implementing a dynamic content scheduler for a streaming device [image display apparatus 100, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 31, 32, 36-39, 49] locally connected to a display device [display unit 260, Fig. 2, paras. 38, 49], including:
determining a content source device locally connected to the streaming device [e.g. terrestrial antenna, cable, etc., connected via set-top 130/port unit 210, Figs. 1, 3, paras. 32-36, 38, 40, 41];
determining all content available to the streaming device based on the content source device [available content is determined, Figs. 3-7, paras. 43-46, 50, 68, 71, 86-92];
generating a content schedule of video to play at the streaming device based on the all content [EPG generator, Figs. 3-7, paras. 47-50, 72-77, 93, 94]; and
controlling the streaming device to play the video based on the content schedule [select/view content, paras. 58, 60, 83, 85].
Hong is silent on directing control signals from the streaming device to the source.
Sanghavi teaches a system including directing the streaming device to send control signals to the content source device [content source forwards content via server API/delivery network based on request (control signal) from user device, paras. 27, 30, 85 89, 92].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, allowing the user streaming device to indicate the desired content to a source device so that particular content can be transmitted and accurately fulfill the user request.
2. Hong teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
implementing the dynamic content scheduler at a streaming server remote from the streaming device [server 420 provides EPG (content schedule), Figs. 4, 7, paras. 68-71, 92], including:
determining the content source device based on receiving information on the content source device from the streaming device [server 420 provides EPG information for source identified by display apparatus (streaming device) 100/EPG receiver based on received request, Figs. 3, 4, paras. 43, 44, 59, 68-71, 92].
3. Hong teaches the method of claim 2 further comprising:
providing streaming content from the streaming server to the streaming device [e.g. internet streaming service provides content, Fig. 1, paras. 32, 34]; and
determining the all content available to the streaming device, including first content from the content source device and the streaming content from the streaming server [content from all sources is determined and listed in EPG, Figs. 3-5, 7, paras. 43-47, 59, 65-69, 71, 75, 85-90].
4. Hong teaches the method of claim 3 wherein:
the content source device is one of a plurality of content source devices connected to the streaming device [e.g. terrestrial antenna, cable, etc., connected too device 100 via set-top 130/port unit 210, Figs. 1, 3, paras. 32-36, 38, 40, 41]; and
the method further comprises determining the all content available to the streaming device based on content available from each of the plurality of content source devices [Figs. 3-5, 7, paras. 43-47, 59, 65-69, 71, 75, 85-90].
5. Hong teaches the method of claim 4 further comprising: adding the content available from each of the plurality of content source devices to a user interface (UI) of the streaming device [Figs. 5, 6, paras. 73-79].
6 and 13 and 18. Hong teaches the method of claim 5 further comprising:
receiving a user selection of programming to add to the content schedule; and generating the content schedule based on the user selection [user can search for (i.e. select) content and information about the retrieved content is included in the EPG, Figs. 5, 6, paras. 50, 78-82, 96].
7 and 14 and 19. Hong teaches the method of claim 5 further comprising:
determining attribute information associated with the streaming device [e.g. determining type of connected input source, Figs. 1-3, paras. 43, 63-65]; and
automatically generating the content schedule based on the attribute information [Figs. 3-5, 7, paras. 43-47, 59, 65-69, 71, 75, 85-90].
8. Hong teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising: determining the all content available to the streaming device, including accessing an electronic program guide associated with the content source device [EPG information is received from input sources, paras. 45, 47, 67-70; also see Figs. 3-7, paras. 43, 44, 46, 50, 71, 86-92].
11. Hong teaches the system of claim 10, wherein:
the content source device is one of a plurality of content source devices connected to the streaming device [e.g. terrestrial antenna, cable, etc., connected via set-top 130/port unit 210, Figs. 1, 3, paras. 32-36, 38, 40, 41];
the streaming service further configured to:
provide streaming content from the streaming service to the streaming device [e.g. internet streaming service provides content, Fig. 1, paras. 32, 34]; and
determine the all content available to the streaming device based on content available from each of the plurality of content source devices and the streaming content from the streaming service [content from all sources is determined and listed in EPG, Figs. 3-5, 7, paras. 43-47, 59, 65-69, 71, 75, 85-90].
12. Hong teaches the system of claim 11 comprising the streaming service further configured to:
determine the all content available to the streaming device, including accessing an electronic program guide associated with the content source device [EPG information about available content is received from input sources, paras. 45, 47, 67-70; also see Figs. 3-7, paras. 43, 44, 46, 50, 71, 86-92].; and
add the content available from each of the plurality of content source devices to a user interface (UI) of the streaming device [EPG generator, Figs. 3-7, paras. 47-50, 72-77, 93, 94].
Claims 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong and Sanghavi as cited above in view of Wehmeyer et al., US 2009/0055868.
9 and 15 and 20. The above references are silent on updating the guide. Wehmeyer teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising:
monitoring for content changes affecting the content schedule [updated schedule information is received, paras. 65, 66]; and
dynamically updating the content schedule based on the content changes [displayed guide is updated based on monitoring updated web information].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, ensuring the user is always seeing the most current information to avoid frustration in choosing from an outdated guide.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong and Sanghavi as cited above in view of Parker, US 2016/0219330.
17. Hong teaches the memory device of claim 16, wherein:
the content source device is one of a plurality of content source devices connected to the streaming device [e.g. terrestrial antenna, cable, etc., connected too device 100 via set-top 130/port unit 210, Figs. 1, 3, paras. 32-36, 38, 40, 41];
the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
provide streaming content from the streaming service to the streaming device [e.g. internet streaming service provides content, Fig. 1, paras. 32, 34];
determine the all content available to the streaming device based on content available from each of the plurality of content source devices and the streaming content from the streaming service [content from all sources is determined and listed in EPG, Figs. 3-5, 7, paras. 43-47, 59, 65-69, 71, 75, 85-90].
Hong is silent on changing the source in response to a programming change in the schedule.
Parker teaches a system including sending a signal, based on a programming change in the content schedule, directing the streaming device to:
switch to an input of a selected one of the plurality of content source devices [when programming changes from content to a commercial, the system switches to a new content source, paras. 22, 45, 46, 50]; and
send a control signal causing the selected one of the plurality of content source devices to switch to specified content channel [selected source is directed to display same channel (programming) that is was displayed on previous source/channel but is currently showing a commercial, paras. 22, 45, 46, 50].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, allowing the user to conveniently avoid content that has changed to a commercial, without having to manually monitor content and use the input device to manually select a new desired source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights