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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 27, 2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
Claim Objections
Previous Claim Objections to Claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 to Claims 1-18 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/05/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8+ of Remarks, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7 and 10-16 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakade et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/00306569).
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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudhiyaveetil et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0267451) in view of Sukanen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0235328), Thomas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0186025) and Nakade et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/00306569).
Regarding claim 1, Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses a display device that controls content playback, the display device comprising (see paragraphs 0026-0028; user devices 160-1 to 160-n with processor 165 and display 191/192 for multimedia playback):
a display that is configured in such a manner that the specific content is displayed on the display (see paragraph 0028, display 191 and 192 shows multimedia programs),
wherein, based on the specific content having been purchased, the processor determines whether or not the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430)),
wherein, when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0048, fig. 4(435, 440); stores ending time point when refund is requested), and
wherein, when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is not refundable (see paragraphs 0014, 0047, fig. 4 (425, 430); refund expiration logic).
Although Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses a processor that determines content events and elapsed time in paragraph 0036 and fig. 2 (220-1, 230-1). Pudhiyaveetil et al. is silent as to a processor that acquires a content identifier (ID) for the specific content, the previous accumulated playback time for the specific content, and the playback point in time for the specific content based on the playback request, the processor stores the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time at a specific interval of time, and the processor stores the current playback point in time at a specific interval of time.
Sukanen et al. discloses a processor that acquires a content identifier (ID) for the specific content, an accumulated playback time for the specific content, and a current playback point in time for the specific content based on the playback request (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (310 – content id), (305 – timestamp), (307 – content duration), fig. 2, fig. 4 (433-447); playback time and point are tracked and stored); and
the processor stores the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time at a specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 2 (231-233), fig. 4 (433-447); stores playback events at intervals, including elapsed time and timestamps), and
the processor stores the current playback point in time at a specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 2 (231-233)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refund eligibility system of Pudhiyaveetil et al. with the teaching of the playback tracking system of Sukanen et al., the motivation being to improve refund accuracy and user accountability in multimedia systems.
Although Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses user input/output (I/O) devices 180 (touchscreen, keyboard, mouse) in paragraph 0029 and Sukanen et al. discloses mobile terminal input devices (keyboard 947, etc., in fig. 9). Both Pudhiyaveetil et al. and Sukanen et al. do not explicitly disclose remote control device.
Thomas et al. discloses a user input interface through which a playback request for specific content is received from a remote control device (see paragraphs 0075, 0079 and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Pudhiyaveetil et al. and Sukanen et al. with the teaching of the of Thomas et al., the motivation being to provide user convenience.
However, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al. and Thomas et al. are silent as to the processor does not store the accumulated playback time.
Nakade et al. discloses the processor does not store the accumulated playback time (see paragraphs 0108, 0182; the controller 114 stops the calculation of the registered user's cumulative viewing time).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al. and Thomas et al. with the teaching of the of Nakade et al., the motivation being to update the viewing information on the user.
Regarding claim 2, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor executes a first application program (considered as content player, 121) and a second application program (considered as played content tracker, 137) that manages the playback history of the specific content (see paragraphs 0030-0033 and fig. 1A; the tracker process manages playback history by storing events in database 132), and
wherein, when the playback request for the specific content is received, the processor requests information about the specific content from the second application program (see paragraphs 0030-0033, fig. 6b(651a-653c); the content player/event generator sends event data to the played content tracker, which stores and provides playback history), and receives the information about the specific content, which includes the accumulated playback time and the current time, from the second application program (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305 – Timestamp; 307 – Content Duration). The played content tracker provides this information back to the client – see paragraphs 0032-0033 and fig. 6b)).
Regarding claim 3, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein, when the information about the specific content is received from the second application program, the processor transfers a request to stream the specific content to a control server (see paragraphs 0030-0033, fig. 1a; event generator 127 sending playback events to a content service system 130 via a message service 110), and the control server transfers the request to stream the specific content to a content server that stores the specific content (see paragraphs 0032-0033; content service system 130 with content database 132 stores content and responds to playback requests).
Regarding claim 4, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein, when the playback request is received, the processor requests first information about the specific content from the second application program (see paragraphs 0030-0033, fig. 1a; content player process 121 and played content tracker process 137. The player requests information from the tracker, which manages playback history – see fig. 6b (651a-653c) shows request for stored playback events), and receives the first information about the specific content, which includes the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time, from the second application program (see paragraphs 0003-0005; playback event messages include fig. 3 (timestamp 305, and content duration 307); the tracker provides this information back to the client – see paragraphs 0032-0033 and fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 5, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein, when the first information about the specific content is received from the second application program (see paragraph 0030-0033, fig. 1a; content player process 121 and played content tracker process 137. Tracker provides playback history (elapsed time, timestamp, content id) back to the player (fig. 6b, 651a-653c)), the processor transfers a request to stream the specific content to a control server (see paragraph 0030-0033; event generator 127 sends playback events to message service 110, which relays to content service system 130), receives the specific content from a content server that stores the specific content (see paragraphs 0032-0033; content service system 130 with content database 132 stores content and responds to requests), starting from a point in time after the current playback point in time, through the control server (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307), fig. 6b), and controls the display in such a manner that the received specific content is played back on the display, starting from a point in time after the current playback point in time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 6, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses wherein, when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430)).
Sukanen et al. discloses the processor stores the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time through the second application program (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307); played content tracker process 137 stores playback events including content id, timestamp and duration. Paragraphs 0032-0033, fig. 6b; the second application program manages playback history), and determines whether or not the stored accumulated playback time exceeds a threshold time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 4 (433-447)), and wherein, when it is determined that the accumulated playback time exceeds the threshold time, the processor transfers second information indicating that the accumulated playback time exceeds the threshold time, to the control server (see paragraphs 0030-0033, fig. 6a (601-625), fig. 6b (651a-653c); event generator 127 and played content tracker 137 send event data to content service system 130 via message service 110).
Regarding claim 7, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses the processor determines that the purchase of the specific content is not refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (425-430); refund determination logic).
Sukanen et al. disclose when a response indicating that the second information is received is received from the control server (see paragraphs 0030-0033, fig. 6a (601-625), fig. 6b (651a-653c); message service 110 and content service system 130 receiving playback events and returning responses), and, on the basis of the response indicating that the second information is received, enables the second application program to store the current playback point in time that is updated at a specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307), fig. 4 (433-447), fig. 6b (651a-653c)).
Regarding claim 10, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor receives a first request for a content list associated with played-back content items, from the input device (see paragraph 0032, fig. 4 (413-431); mobile terminal 120 and API client 155 interact with content service system 130 to request playlists), transfers a second request for a content playback history to the second application program (see paragraphs 0032-0033, fig. 6b (651a-653c); played content tracker process 137 stores playback events and responds to requests for playback history), receives a response to the last access times for content items from the second application program (see paragraph 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307); tracker provides this information back to the client (fig. 6b)), and aligns the played-back content items according to the last access times (see paragraph 0032, fig. 1a; playlist data structure 139 in content database 132 organizes played content items. Fig. 6b (663); list of events in order of occurrence).
Thomas et al. discloses remote control (see paragraphs 0075, 0079 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor displays on the display the content list of the played-back content items aligned in decreasing order of the last access time (see paragraphs 0032; playlist data structure 139 in content database 132 stores played content items. Playback events include timestamps (last access times) in paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305). Fig. 6b(651a-653c, 663) shows retrieval and ordering of playback events in sequence. Aligning by decreasing order of last access time is an obvious variation of ordering by timestamps), and, wherein, when one content item is selected from the content list (see paragraph 0030, fig. 1a), the processor determines on the basis of the accumulated playback time for the selected content whether or not the selected content is refund-eligible (the combination of Pudhiyaveetil et al. teaches refund eligibility logic based on elapsed playback time threshold in paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430). Sukanen et al. teaches providing accumulated playback time and timestamps via playback tracker in paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 3070)).
Regarding claim 12, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses wherein, when the selected content is refund-eligible (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430)) and wherein, when it is determined that the selected content is not refund-eligible (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (425-430)).
Sukanen et al. discloses the processor stores the accumulated playback, the current playback time, and the last access time at an interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307) fig. 6b (651a-653c); playback tracker process 137 stores playback events including content ID, timestamp (last access time), and duration (accumulated playback time). Storage occurs at reporting intervals (see fig. 2 (231-233, fig. 4 (433-447)),
the processor stores the current playback time at a specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 13, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses determines, in a state where the playback of the specific content is temporarily paused, whether or not the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430)).
Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor receives a request to temporarily pause specific content from the input device (see paragraph 0030, fig. 2 (211-223); mobile terminal 120 with input devices (keyboard 947, etc., fig. 9) and event generator 127 detect start/stop/pause events. Pause/stop events are generated and sent to the service), receives the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time for the specific content from the second application program (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307), fig. 6b (651a-653c); played content tracker process 137 stores playback events including timestamp (current playback point) and duration (accumulated playback time)), transfers a request to stop streaming the specific content, with information about the accumulated playback time being included in the request (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 4 (421-447); event generator 127 sends stop playback events with elapsed time information to the content service system).
Thomas et al. discloses remote control (see paragraphs 0075, 0079 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430)), when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is not refundable, the processor stores the current playback point in time for the specific content (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (425-430; refund expiration logic), the purchase of which is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430; refund eligibility logic based on playback stage).
Sukanen et al. discloses wherein, in the state where the playback of the specific content is temporarily paused (see paragraph 0030, fig. 2 (211-223); event generator 127 detects stop/pause events), the processor stores the accumulated viewing time, the current playback point in time, and the last access time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307), fig. 6b (651a-653c); playback tracker process 137 stores playback events including timestamp (last access time), duration (accumulated playback time), and playback point); wherein, in the state where the playback of the specific content is temporarily paused, and wherein, in the state where the playback of the specific content is temporarily paused, when it is determined that the accumulated playback time for the specific content, does not exceed a threshold time, the processor stores the accumulated playback time, the current playback point in time, and the last access time for the specific content (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 4 (433-447); tracker stores playback events including duration, timestamp, and playback point (fig. 3, fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 15, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 3). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses determines, in a state where a temporary pause of the playback of the specific content is terminated, whether or not the purchase of the specific content is refundable (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430); refund eligibility determination logic).
Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor receives a request to temporarily pause specific content from the input device (see paragraph 0030, fig. 2 (211-223)event generator 127 detects start/stop/pause events. Pause events are generated and sent to the service), receives the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time for the specific content from the second application program (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 3 (305, 307), fig. 6b (651a-653c); played content tracker process 137 stores playback events including timestamp (current playback point) and duration (accumulated playback time)), transfers a request to stream the specific content, with information about the accumulated playback time being included in the request (see paragraph 0003-0005, fig. 4 (421-447); event generator 127 sends playback events including elapsed time to the content service system).
Regarding claim 16, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 15). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is refundable, the processor stores the accumulated viewing time, the current playback point in time, and the last access time at a specific interval of time (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (410-430); refund eligibility determination logic), when it is determined that the purchase of the specific content is not refundable, the processor stores the current playback point in time for the specific content at the specific interval of time (see paragraph 0014, fig. 4 (425-430); refund expiration logic).
Sukanen et al. discloses wherein, in the state where a temporary pause of the playback of the specific content is terminated (see paragraph 0030, fig. 2 (211-223); event generator 127 detects stop/pause events and resumes playback), and wherein, in the state where a temporary pause of the playback of the specific content is terminated, when it is determined that the accumulated playback time for the specific content, the purchase of which is refundable, does not a threshold time, the processor stores the accumulated playback time, the current playback point in time, and the last access time for the specific content at the specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 4 (433-447); determining whether elapsed play time exceeds a threshold duration. Fig. 3, fig. 6b; tracker stores playback events including duration, timestamp, and playback point).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sensui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0311578).
Regarding claim 17, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6). Sukanen et al. discloses wherein the processor receives content recommendation information from the content server through the control server, receives a specific content playback request from a content list, which varies according to the content recommendation information (see paragraphs 0025, 0032-0033; playlist (139) generated based on played content and metadata. The playlists vary depending on what content has been played and recommendations), determines whether or not a playback time based on the current playback point in time at which the specific content is played back in the display device exceeds a first threshold time, and, when the playback time exceeds the first threshold time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, 0014, fig. 4 (433, 435, 437); determining whether elapsed play time exceeds a threshold duration before storing content in a playlist).
However, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. are silent as to displays on the display a dialog box for asking whether or not the purchase of the played-back specific content is approved.
Sensui et al. discloses displays on the display a dialog box for asking whether or not the purchase of the played-back specific content is approved (see paragraphs 0069 and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al. and Nakade et al. with the teaching of the of Sensui et al., the motivation being to provide clear communication and enhance user experience.
Regarding claim 18, Pudhiyaveetil et al., Sukanen et al., Thomas et al., Nakade et al. and Sukanen et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 17). Pudhiyaveetil et al. discloses wherein, in a case where a content purchase request to approve the purchase of the specific content is not received, the processor controls the display in such a manner that the playback of the specific content is stopped (see fig. 4 (410, 420, 425); refund logic where playback may be terminated if the user does not approve purchase or request refund).
Sukanen et al. discloses transfers a request to stop streaming the specific content to the content server through the control server (see paragraphs 0025-0032, fig. 5 (503, 511, 521); sending event messages (including stop events) to the content tracking server), wherein, in the case where a content purchase request to approve the purchase of the specific content is received, the processor controls the display in such a manner that the specific content is played back starting from a point in time after the first threshold time (see fig. 6c (631, 665, 667); resuming playback of second content after threshold time events, marking scrobbled content once threshold exceeded) and stores the accumulated playback time and the current playback point in time for the specific content at the specific interval of time (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 4 (433, 435, 437; determining elapsed play time and storing event data (playlists, metadata) fig. 6b shows storing playback in sequence), and wherein, when it is determined that the accumulated playback time exceeds the threshold time, the processor transfers second information indicating that the accumulated playback time exceeds the threshold time, to the control server (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 6c (665, 667, 671); marking content as “scrobbled” when elapsed time exceeds threshold, and distributing stop/playback events to servers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 April 22, 2026.
Prosecution Insights