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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 5/01/26 in which claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Chauhan clearly teaches wherein teaches “The credential manager 136 may provide the mobility manager 132 data indicating a logical and/or physical location of the streaming device 102 and a request to determine if there are any devices that are near that logical and/or physical location. For example, the credential manager 136 may provide a request to the mobility manager 132 to determine whether there are any subscriber devices or other devices that are connected to the same home network with the IP address included in the request. In this case, if a subscriber device or another device is on the same home network as the streaming device 102, then the mobility manager 132 may determine that the subscriber device or other device is near, or in the vicinity of, the streaming device 102. As another example, the credential manager 136 may provide a request to the mobility manager 132 to determine whether there are any subscriber devices or other devices that are within a threshold distance (e.g., fifteen meters) of the GPS location of the streaming device 102. In this case, if a GPS location of a subscriber device is within the threshold distance of the GPS location of the streaming device 102, then the subscriber device is near the streaming device 102” (See paragraph [0018]). One with ordinary skill in the art can confidently conclude that Chauhan clearly teaches wherein media streaming to the confirmed streaming device is allowed to continue even as the mobile device moves to other locations away from the fixed position media player since the streaming device is at a distance from the subscriber devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being assigned by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014915 to Chauhan.
a. As per claim 1, Chauhan teaches an automated process to be performed by a streaming server that communicates with a mobile media player device via a network, the automated process comprising: authenticating, by the streaming server, a fixed position media player device operating at a fixed location to correspond with a streaming account (See paragraph [0013], the user authentication request 124 may include a user identifier for the user 104 and/or other user identifiers for the other users in the household of the user 104. The user authentication request 124 may include data identifying a physical and/or logical location of the streaming device 102); subsequently receiving, by the streaming server, authentication data associated with the streaming account from the mobile media player device via the network (See paragraph [0011] ); receiving, by the streaming server via the network, authentication data and location data from the mobile media player, wherein the location data is indicative of a location of the mobile media player device (See paragraph [0018, 0020], ); and selectively designating the mobile media player device as a confirmed streaming device based upon (i) verifying that the authentication data is associated with the streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data received from the mobile media player device meets a threshold co-location criterion with the fixed location of the fixed position media player device (See paragraph [0020-0023]), wherein media streaming to the confirmed streaming device is allowed to continue even as the mobile device moves to other locations away from the fixed position media player (See paragraph [0018]).
b. As per claim 11, Chauhan teaches a data processing system that communicates with a mobile media player device via a network, the data processing system comprising:
an interface to the network (See paragraph [0012]); a processor (See paragraph [0037]);
and a non-transitory data storage having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the data processing system to perform an automated process comprising: initially authenticating, by the streaming server, a fixed position media player device operating at a fixed location to correspond with a streaming account (See paragraph [0013], the user authentication request 124 may include a user identifier for the user 104 and/or other user identifiers for the other users in the household of the user 104. The user authentication request 124 may include data identifying a physical and/or logical location of the streaming device 102); subsequently receiving, by the streaming server, authentication data associated with the streaming account from the mobile media player device via the network (See paragraph [0011]); receiving, by the streaming server via the network, authentication data and location data from the mobile media player, wherein the location data is indicative of a location of the mobile media player device (See paragraph [0018 and 0020]); and selectively designating to the mobile media player device as a confirmed streaming device based upon (i) verifying that the authentication data is associated with the streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data received from the mobile media player device meets a threshold co-location criterion with the fixed location of the fixed position media player device (See paragraph [0020-0023]), wherein media streaming to the confirmed streaming device is allowed to continue even as the mobile device moves to other locations away from the fixed position media player (See paragraph [0018]).
c. As per claims 2 and 12, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the location data received from the mobile media player device further indicates a colocation time between the mobile media player device that has been designated as a confirmed streaming device and a third media device (See paragraph [0046 and 0082], more than one subscriber device).
d. As per claims 3 and 13, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches further comprising selectively enabling media streaming to the third media player device at a different location from the fixed-location media player device (See paragraph [0018]) based upon (i) determining that media streaming to the mobile media player device is confirmed based upon the threshold co-location criterion with the fixed-location media player device (See paragraph [0018 and 0031], the credential manager 136 may provide a request to the mobility manager 132 to determine whether there are any subscriber devices or other devices that are within a threshold distance (e.g., fifteen meters) of the GPS location of the streaming device 102. In this case, if a GPS location of a subscriber device is within the threshold distance of the GPS location of the streaming device 102, then the subscriber device is near the streaming device 102; ) ii) verifying that second authentication data received from the third media player device is associated with the streaming account (See paragraph [0037]); and (iii) determining that the colocation time between the mobile media player device and the third media player device meets a second co-location criterion (See paragraph [0030-0031 and 0046]).
e. As per claims 4 and 14, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches further disabling media streaming to the mobile device after a pre-determined period of time if the threshold co-location criterion is no longer met. (See paragraph [0018]).
f. As per claims 5 and 15, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the pre-determined period of time is about four weeks.(See paragraph [0084]).
g. As per claim 6, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the fixed location media player device is configured to provide media content to a television set (See paragraph [0012]).
h. As per claim 7, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the fixed location media player device is a smart television (See paragraph [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014915 to Chauhan in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0168071 to Ahmed et al.
a. As per claim 8, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to explicitly teach further comprising selectively disabling the media streaming to the mobile media player device after a pre-determined period of time if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even when the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified.
Ahmed et al teaches further comprising selectively disabling the media streaming to the mobile media player device if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even when the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified (See paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan et al in order to provide and maintain a secure connection among the multiple devices.
b. As per claim 10, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to explicitly teach wherein the location data is based upon an internet protocol (IP) address of a local area network (LAN) used by the fixed position and mobile media player devices.
Ahmed et al teaches wherein the location data is based upon an internet protocol (IP) address of a local area network (LAN) used by the fixed position and mobile media player devices (See paragraph [0098, 0130]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan et al in order to provide and deliver contents and services to users.
7. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014915 to Chauhan in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0119438 to Abramson et al.
a. As per claim 16, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to teach disabling media streaming to the mobile device after a pre-determined period of time if the threshold co-location criterion is no longer met.
Abramson et al teaches disabling media streaming to the mobile device after a pre-determined period of time if the threshold co-location criterion is no longer met (See paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Abramson et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan in order to determine a change in presence when the electronic device is within a predetermined proximity of the display device according to data transmitted from the electronic device to the server (See paragraph [0004]).
b. As per claim 17, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to teach wherein the pre-determined period of time is about four weeks (See paragraph [0014], The reverification process may occur at periodic intervals such as every month or every week).
c. As per claim 18, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to teach wherein the co-location criteria comprises a threshold amount of time that the fixed position media player and the mobile media player reside on the same network over a period of time prior to the designating.
Abramson et al teaches wherein the co-location criteria comprises a threshold amount of time that the fixed position media player and the mobile media player reside on the same network over a period of time prior to the designating (See paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Abramson et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan in order to determine a change in presence when the electronic device is within a predetermined proximity of the display device according to data transmitted from the electronic device to the server (See paragraph [0004]).
d. As per claim 19, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to teach wherein the media streaming to the mobile media player device is disabled after a pre-determined period of time if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even if the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified.
Abramson et al teaches wherein the media streaming to the mobile media player device is disabled after a pre-determined period of time if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even if the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified (See paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Abramson et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan in order to determine a change in presence when the electronic device is within a predetermined proximity of the display device according to data transmitted from the electronic device to the server (See paragraph [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 20 is allowed.
9. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. 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 DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
11. 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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights