DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed July 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1-2, 5, 8, 14-15, and 18-20 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received July 1, 2016 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose a device being provided to a content item and a modified output of the content item by a content server. Applicant additionally argues that that the cited prior art fails to disclose a portable electronic device being provided content by a content server. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 8, and 14.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art on record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 18 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.
The cited prior art fails to disclose wherein a manifest file associated with the content item is provided by a server to the second device, and wherein presenting, via the first device, the modified output of the content item is further based at least in part on the server: altering at least a portion of the manifest file based at least in part on the privacy level of the environment; and providing the altered manifest file to the first device.
The cited prior art also fails to disclose wherein a manifest file is provided for segments of the content item when the environment of the device is a private environment, and based at least in part on determining that the device is in a public environment, the manifest is updated to enable the modifying of the output of the content item.
The cited prior art additionally fails to disclose wherein: when presenting the initial output of the content item, a modified version of a future segment of the content item is downloaded while the device is connected to a Wi-Fi network; and the determining, based on the identified characteristic, the privacy level of the environment of the device occurs while the device is not connected to the Wi-Fi network; and the device is configured to display the modified output of the content item using the modified version of the future segment.
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, 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 1-3, 6-7, 12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication No. EP 4 564 834 A1 (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0179455 (“Liu”).
With respect to claim 14, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A system comprising:
control circuitry (see Abstract, Figs. 2, 5, 6, 7A-7C, 8A-8B, items 220-224, ¶¶1, 2, 5, 10-11, 16, 33, describing a system that includes devices, e.g., a smart phone in wireless communication with a smart TV, and that this system of devices may include processors/computers/software/circuitry for sending and receiving content and information, making determinations about the environment, modifying content and information, and presenting such content and information) configured to:
present, via a device, an initial output of a content item, …(see Abstract, Figs. 2, 5, 6, items 220, 720, 740, 760, 820, 830, ¶¶1-2, 47, describing presenting, via an electronic device with a large screen, mirrored content from a portable electronic device, i.e., initial output of a content item associated with a content provider);
identify a characteristic of the device (see Abstract, Figs. 2, 6, 11, items “viewer”, 1110, ¶¶3-7, 48-51, 56-57, 63-64, 70, 90-92, describing that the system identifies a characteristic of the electronic device, e.g., presence of or number of viewers viewing the device/content);
determine, based on the identified characteristic, a privacy level of an environment of the device (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, describing that, based on this characteristic of the electronic device, e.g., number of viewers, the system determines the content’s potential exposure to others, i.e., determines the privacy level of the environment); and
based at least in part on the determined privacy level, present, via the device, a
modified output of the content item… (see citations with respect to element above and Figs. 7B-7C, 8A-8B, 11, items 740, 760, 820, 830, 1120-1130, describing that based on this potential exposure to others of the content, i.e., based on the determined privacy level, the system presents modified output, e.g., blurred or redacted/edited versions, of the content via the electronic device – these paragraphs describe, for example, presenting the display without blurring at level 0, monitoring the characteristic/viewer information, and then, based on a change thereof, presenting a blurred image).
Although Lee describes determining a number of viewers within the vicinity of the device and basing a degree/level of blurriness thereon (see, e.g., ¶¶49-51, 68, 71, 107-108, 124), Lee does not explicitly use the term “privacy level”. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling, privacy would have been understood to be a state where one is free from being observed. Thus, by determining the number of observers/required level of blurriness, Lee would have been understood by such a person to be determining a “privacy level”. Accordingly, to such a person, modifying Lee to use such a term would have been obvious.
Lee discloses that the content to be displayed is mirrored from a portable electronic device, e.g., smartphone. Lee does not explicitly state where or how the smartphone obtained this content – whether it was generated by the smartphone, received from a remote source, e.g., server, or a combination thereof. Thus, Lee does not explicitly disclose the content item is provided by a content server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches that it was known for content received at a mobile user device to be provided by a content server, i.e.:
the content item is provided by a content server (see Figs. 2, 3, 6A-9F, items 102, 110, 220, ¶¶53, 172-177, 184-185, 222, describing that the content to be displayed on an external display device may be provided by a server, i.e., a content server, or any other suitable source by itself or in combination with a user device, e.g., mobile device).
As detailed above, Lee discloses the displaying of image/video by mirroring/streaming/casting to a display device from a mobile user device (see citations above), but does not recite the origin of the source of such images/video. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the potential sources for such content/images/video, including from a content server – in lieu of the mobile user device or in coordination with the mobile user device, as evidenced by Liu. Accordingly, to such a person, receiving content from a content server in lieu of the mobile user device or in coordination with the user mobile device in the display casting system of Lee would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for receiving content from a content server in lieu of the mobile user device or in coordination with the user mobile device in the display casting system of Lee as taught by Liu.
With respect to claim 15, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lee in view of Liu discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. Lee/Liu additionally discloses:
wherein the device is a first device, wherein a second device casts or streams the initial output of the content item to the first device, and wherein the second device is in communication with the content server to receive the modified output of the content item and provide the modified output of the content item to the first device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above and Lee Figs. 2-4, items 230, describing that the device may be a first device for presenting content received from a second device that casts/streams the initial and modified content to the first device for output).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 14 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lee in view of Liu discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. Lee/Liu additionally discloses:
wherein an indication of the determined privacy level is provided for display on the second device, prior to the second device casting or streaming the initial output of the content item to the first device (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above and Lee Figs. 7B-7C, 9, 11, items 750, 1130, ¶¶119-120, showing and describing that a pop-up window, i.e., an indication of the determined privacy level, may be displayed on the second device and, as shown in Fig. 7B, that this may be done prior to casting/streaming the initial output of content to the first device).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 14 also apply to claim 16.
With respect to claim 19, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lee in view of Liu discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. Lee/Liu additionally discloses:
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
analyze at least one segment of the content item; and
present the modified output of the content item based on the analyzing (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above and Figs. 8A-8B, 9, ¶¶90-92, describing that the system may also analyze segments of the content, e.g., whether the mirrored content includes messages received on the portable device, and present the modified output based on this, e.g., may modify the message notification to only show the name without message contents or to show neither name nor contents).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 14 also apply to claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lee in view of Liu discloses all the elements of independent claim 14. Lee/Liu additionally discloses:
wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine the privacy level is further configured to:
determine whether the environment of the device is a public environment or a private environment; and
present the modified output of the content item based at least in part on determining that the device is in a public environment (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above, describing that the circuitry determines the privacy level by determining whether the environment of the device is public or private, e.g., by determining the number of viewers in the vicinity of the device, and presenting the modified output where the number of viewers is greater, i.e., determining that the device is in a public/not private environment).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 14 also apply to claim 20.
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 recites all the elements of independent claim 14 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 14 also applies to claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 recites all the elements of independent claim 15 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 15 also applies to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites all the elements of independent claim 16 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 16 also applies to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites all the elements of independent claim 17 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 17 also applies to claim 4.
With respect to claim 6, claim 6 recites all the elements of independent claim 19 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 19 also applies to claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, claim 7 recites all the elements of independent claim 20 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 20 also applies to claim 7.
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lee in view of Liu discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Lee/Liu additionally discloses:
wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on determining that a number of inputs received at the device over a period of time via a remote control is fewer than a threshold (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above, describing comparing the number of viewers to a threshold and determining the blur level based on whether this number is greater or fewer than a threshold, and Figs. 3-5, ¶¶113-114, 135, describing that the determining the number of viewers may be based on wireless connection of a second/external portable electronic device to the electronic device, i.e., determining that a number of inputs received at the device over a period of time via remote control).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 14 also apply to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0058708 (“Shin”).
With respect to claim 17, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Lee in view of Liu discloses each and every element of independent claim 14.
Lee/Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein an option to stream or cast the content to the first device is provided for display on the second device based at least in part on digital rights associated with the content item.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin discloses that it was known for the option to stream or cast is based on digital rights of the content:
wherein an option to stream or cast the content to the first device is provided for display on the second device based at least in part on digital rights associated with the content item (see Abstract, ¶¶151, 189, describing that it was known to only allow the sharing of content on a display/first device for display from a broadcasting device/second device based upon the digital rights, e.g., copyright information, of the content).
As detailed above, Lee discloses the displaying of image/video by streaming/casting to a display device (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with such casting and the legal pitfalls with doing so, including issues with digital rights/copyrights and public display. Such a person would have understood that, as evidenced by Shin, one way to ensure that such casting was within the appropriate legal boundaries was to check the digital rights/copyright information of the content prior to casting/streaming. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the display casting system of Lee would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for casting/streaming content to the display/device based on the digital rights associated with the content in the display casting system of Lee/Liu as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites all the elements of independent claim 17 in computer-implemented method form rather than system form. Lee discloses that its system may be implemented by a computer (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶9-10, 30-31, 35, 43). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 17 also applies to claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,791,140 (“Dahlberg”).
With respect to claim 9, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Lee in view of Liu discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Lee/Liu also discloses:
wherein the characteristic is a number of devices in the environment determined to have previously been [connected] with the device, and wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on determining that the number of devices exceeds a threshold (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 14 and 12 above, describing that the number of viewers can be determined based on the number of external devices connected to the electronic device and the blur level may be based on the number of viewers/external devices exceeding a threshold).
Lee/Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic is a number of devices in the environment determined to have previously been paired with the device…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dahlberg discloses that it was known to determine the number of devices paired with a display to determine its privacy level:
wherein the characteristic is a number of devices in the environment determined to have previously been paired with the device… (see 10:66-11:17, describing that whether a device is public may be determined by the number of devices connected to it being greater than a threshold, including the number in a day, in a week, etc., i.e., the number previously paired with the device).
As detailed above, Lee discloses determining whether an environment is private or public by determining how many viewers are in the vicinity, e.g., by monitoring device connections, using a camera, etc. (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the potential ways to detect whether a display is in a public environment and have understood that, as evidenced by Dahlberg, one known way was to monitor the number of portable devices previously connected/paired with the display. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, determining privacy level based on the number of devices previously connected/paired with the display, e.g., in the last day, week, etc., would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for determining the privacy level of the device based on the number of devices previously connected/paired with it being greater than a threshold in the display casting system of Lee/Liu as taught by Dahlberg.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0294926 (“Duffy”).
With respect to claim 10, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Lee in view of Liu discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Lee/Liu also discloses:
wherein the device is connected to a Wi-Fi network, and… (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 14 above and Lee ¶¶2, 25, 39, 42, 53, 55, 130-131).
Lee/Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic is based on a Wi-Fi network type of the Wi-Fi network, and wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on the Wi-Fi network type being indicative of a public network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Duffy discloses that it was known to determine whether an electronic device is in a public environment based on its Wi-Fi network being a public network:
wherein the characteristic is based on a Wi-Fi network type of the Wi-Fi network, and wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on the Wi-Fi network type being indicative of a public network (see ¶91, describing that it was known to determine the surrounding state of the device/privacy level based on the type of Wi-Fi and determine the privacy level to be low/public where the Wi-Fi network is indicative of a public network).
As detailed above, Lee discloses determining whether an environment is private or public by determining how many viewers are in the vicinity, e.g., by monitoring device connections, using a camera, etc. (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the potential ways to detect a public environment with people and have understood that, as evidenced by Duffy, one known way was to determine the privacy level of the Wi-Fi network. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, determining whether the Wi-Fi network is indicative of a public network to determine privacy level, instead of using a camera/sensor or monitoring device connections to determine viewers, would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for determining whether the Wi-Fi network is indicative of a public network to determine privacy level in the display casting system of Lee/Liu as taught by Duffy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,339,176 (“Kim”).
With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Lee in view of Liu discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
Lee/Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on determining that an ambient noise level in the environment exceeds a threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses that it was known to determine whether a device is in a public environment based on ambient noise level:
wherein determining that the device is in a public environment is based at least in part on determining that an ambient noise level in the environment exceeds a threshold (see 4:61-5:2, 6:9-25, describing that the environment, and whether it is determined to be public or private, may be determined based on how noisy the environment is/via a measured ambient noise level, i.e., determining that an ambient noise level in the environment exceeds a threshold).
As detailed above, Lee discloses determining whether an environment is private or public by determining how many viewers are in the vicinity, e.g., by monitoring device connections, using a camera, etc. (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the potential ways to detect a public environment with people and have understood that, as evidenced by Kim, one known way was to determine noise level. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, monitoring noise level to determine whether there are additional viewers in the vicinity, instead of using a camera/sensor or monitoring device connections, would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for monitoring ambient noise to determine privacy level in the display casting system of Lee/Liu as taught by Kim.
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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights