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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2018/0203589 Menand et al. (hereinafter Menand) in view of U.S. Patent 11043114 Candelore et al. (hereinafter Candelore).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Menand discloses A smart device (Fig. 1: 112 remote control device; [0032], “The remote control device 112 is a “smart” device.” Fig. 8; [0062], “The machine 800 may be a smartphone”), comprising:
a processing device (Fig. 3: 304; [0055], “the user interface generation module 304 processes the configuration information.” Fig. 8: 802 processor));
a memory storing instructions which (Fig. 8: storage unit 816 and instructions 824), when executed by the processing device (Fig. 8: 802 processor), cause the smart device (remote control 112) to perform steps (Fig. 4), comprising:
using the received first data to automatically assign at least one command to a configurable input element of a user interface ([0034], “The user interface generation module 304 generates the remote control frames from the received configuration information.”) associated with a controlling device application installed on the smart device ([0015]-[0016], “allow the remote control device to automatically switch to a user interface (e.g., a remote control frame) that corresponds to a state of the application in focus while the systems and methods retain last remote control settings (corresponding to a last remote control frame) for each application running in background.”) and to cause a logo (Netflix logo) that is representative of the OTT service to be displayed in association with the configurable input element ([0015], “The remote control frame may comprise one or more selectable components (e.g., buttons, icons, tabs), images (e.g., logos), text, or functionalities (e.g., swipes) specific to the corresponding application. A remote control frame created for Netflix may comprise a Netflix logo, buttons or gestures (e.g., swiping) for control of functions related to searching or viewing content (e.g., play button, fast forward button, stop button), images of content offered by Netflix, and so forth.”),
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element (Fig. 4: 402 activate application; [0015], “The remote control frame.” corresponds to configurable input element) by causing the at least one command (from remote control device 112) to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app (Fig. 4: 402-408, [0039], “ operation 402, an application is activated and becomes the primary application. Accordingly, the application module 202 accesses (e.g., from the application datastore 210) and loads the application. Upon loading the application, the receiver device 102 causes a display (e.g., content user interface) corresponding to the first application to be presented on the viewing device 104.”)).
However, Menand does not explicitly disclose receiving from an app discovery process executing on an over-the-top (OTT) media streaming device a first data that identifies an OTT app usable to stream a media from an OTT service that is installed on the OTT media streaming device;
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element by causing the at least one command to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app;
Candelore teaches receiving from an app discovery process executing on an over-the-top (OTT) media streaming device a first data that identifies an OTT app usable to stream a media from an OTT service that is installed on the OTT media streaming device (Fig. 3: 316 and 318; Col. 3 lines 51-52, “If the application is not already installed on system 110, the system may fetch, download.” Col. 4 lines 36-57, “the button to displays a changeable label 316, where the label is associated with an application (e.g., the Application of the day, the Application of the Week, the Application of the Month, Discover Apps, Explore Apps, etc.).” Claim 3, “wherein the remote control device comprises a button with a label with one of “App of the Day,” “App of the Week,” “App of the Month,” “Discovery App,” “App Discovery,” and “Discover App”.” Col. 4 lines 36-40, “remote control 300 may include yet another configurable button 320. In this particular example, button 320 is a “Discover” button for discovering and launching other applications listed in the configured file (e.g., configuration file 114 of FIG. 1).”)
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element by causing the at least one command to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app (a configuration file is associated with the button and a label is displayed before any button press; only upon…Claim 1, “receiving a selection of a button…accessing a configuration file…launching the application based on the configuration file and selection of the button…” does the launch occur. The configuration persists for a defined duration prior to that later selection: Claim 1 continued “enabling the application to be launched for a predetermined period of time with an associated expiration date.”);
A POSITA would modify Menand’s data-sourcing mechanism to draw the first data from an app-discovery process of the type taught by Candelore, so that installed-but-unlaunched apps are identified independent of activation, motivated by Candelore’s express goal of reducing menu-navigation burden (Candelore, Background).
3. Regarding Claim 6, Menand discloses The smart device as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one command comprises a command to directly launch the OTT app ([0015], “a remote control frame created for Netflix may comprise a Netflix logo, buttons or gestures (e.g., swiping) for control of functions related to searching or viewing content (e.g., play button, fast forward button, stop button), images of content offered by Netflix”. [0027], “Loading and running the application may cause a content user interface corresponding to the application to be displayed on the viewing device 104, and triggers the digital receiver 102 to configure the remote control device 112 to display the initial or default remote control user interface (e.g., an initial remote control frame established for the application)”).
4. Regarding Claim 7, Menand discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable media (Fig. 8; [0060], “a machine-readable medium 822 (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable medium”) having stored thereon instruction (Fig. 8: 824 instructions) executable by a smart device (Fig. 8; [0062], “The machine 800 may be a smartphone”), the instructions (824) cause the smart device 9smartphone) to perform steps (Fig. 4) comprising:
use the received first data to automatically assign at least one command to a configurable input element of a user interface ([0034], “The user interface generation module 304 generates the remote control frames from the received configuration information.”) associated with a controlling device application installed on the smart device ([0015]-[0016], “allow the remote control device to automatically switch to a user interface (e.g., a remote control frame) that corresponds to a state of the application in focus while the systems and methods retain last remote control settings (corresponding to a last remote control frame) for each application running in background.”) and to cause a logo (Netflix logo) that is representative of the OTT service to be displayed in association with the configurable input element ([0015], “The remote control frame may comprise one or more selectable components (e.g., buttons, icons, tabs), images (e.g., logos), text, or functionalities (e.g., swipes) specific to the corresponding application. A remote control frame created for Netflix may comprise a Netflix logo, buttons or gestures (e.g., swiping) for control of functions related to searching or viewing content (e.g., play button, fast forward button, stop button), images of content offered by Netflix, and so forth.”),
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element (Fig. 4: 402 activate application; [0015], “The remote control frame.” corresponds to configurable input element) by causing the at least one command (from remote control device 112) to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app (Fig. 4: 402-408, [0039], “ operation 402, an application is activated and becomes the primary application. Accordingly, the application module 202 accesses (e.g., from the application datastore 210) and loads the application. Upon loading the application, the receiver device 102 causes a display (e.g., content user interface) corresponding to the first application to be presented on the viewing device 104.”)).
However, Menand does not explicitly disclose receive from an app discovery process executing on an over-the-top (OTT) media streaming device a first data that identifies an OTT app usable to stream a media from an OTT service that is installed on the OTT media streaming device;
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element by causing the at least one command to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app;
Candelore teaches receive from an app discovery process executing on an over-the-top (OTT) media streaming device a first data that identifies an OTT app usable to stream a media from an OTT service that is installed on the OTT media streaming device (Fig. 3: 316 and 318; Col. 3 lines 51-52, “If the application is not already installed on system 110, the system may fetch, download.” Col. 4 lines 36-57, “the button to displays a changeable label 316, where the label is associated with an application (e.g., the Application of the day, the Application of the Week, the Application of the Month, Discover Apps, Explore Apps, etc.).” Claim 3, “wherein the remote control device comprises a button with a label with one of “App of the Day,” “App of the Week,” “App of the Month,” “Discovery App,” “App Discovery,” and “Discover App”.” Col. 4 lines 36-40, “remote control 300 may include yet another configurable button 320. In this particular example, button 320 is a “Discover” button for discovering and launching other applications listed in the configured file (e.g., configuration file 114 of FIG. 1).”)
whereupon the controlling device application will respond to a subsequent activation of the configurable input element by causing the at least one command to be transmitted to the OTT media streaming device to cause the OTT media streaming device to launch the OTT app (a configuration file is associated with the button and a label is displayed before any button press; only upon…Claim 1, “receiving a selection of a button…accessing a configuration file…launching the application based on the configuration file and selection of the button…” does the launch occur. The configuration persists for a defined duration prior to that later selection: Claim 1 continued “enabling the application to be launched for a predetermined period of time with an associated expiration date.”);
A POSITA would modify Menand’s data-sourcing mechanism to draw the first data from an app-discovery process of the type taught by Candelore, so that installed-but-unlaunched apps are identified independent of activation, motivated by Candelore’s express goal of reducing menu-navigation burden (Candelore, Background).
5. Claim 12 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 6.
6. Regarding Claim 13, Menand discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable media as recited in claim 7, wherein the first data is received directly from the OTT media streaming device (Fig. 1; [0020], “the remote control device 112 receives instructions from the digital receiver 102 that configure (e.g., set up, change) the user interface being displayed on the remote control device 112.”. [0027], “The applications may be pre-installed or later installed (e.g., downloaded) to the application datastore 210”).
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.
7. Claim(s) 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menand in view of Candelore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2021/0153124, Pandey et al. (hereinafter Pandey).
8. Regarding Claim 2, Menand in view of Candelore discloses The smart device as recited in claim 1,
However, Menand in view of Candelore does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the smart device to use a second data representative of the OTT media streaming device to identify a further device on which the controlling device application is installed.
Further, Pandey teaches wherein the instructions further cause the smart device to use a second data representative of the OTT media streaming device to identify a further device on which the controlling device application is installed. ([0061], “the electronic device 200 is capable of being paired or communicatively coupled with one or more further electronic devices over a wired/wireless network (not shown in the figure)” [0081], “The control unit 203 may identify a further device having a camera application based on detecting same location of the further device and the electronic device 200, and obtaining device data related to the further device. The electronic device 200 may obtain device data related to the further device during a synch process.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Menand to further utilize device-level information (e.g. device identifiers or characteristics of the OTT media streaming device) to identify another smart device running the controlling-device application, as taught in Pandey, in order to provide multi-device coordination, seamless handoff, or shared control capabilities. Such an enhancement represents no more than the predictable use of known multi-device identification techniques in the OTT control environment and would improve usability without altering the fundamental operation of either system. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2207).
9. Claim 8 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 2.
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.
10. Claim(s) 3, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menand in view of Candelore further in view of Pandey as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 109982304A, Li et al. (hereinafter Li).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Menand in view of Candelore further in view of Pandey discloses The smart device as recited in claim 2,
However, Menand in view of Candelore further in view of Pandey does not explicitly disclose wherein the further device comprises an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) remote control provided for use specifically with at least the OTT media streaming device
Further, Li teaches wherein the further device comprises an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) remote control provided for use specifically with at least the OTT media streaming device (abstract, “a Bluetooth remote controller and the set-top box automatically pairing “)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the multi-device identification technique of Pandey, in the environment of Menand, specifically to an OEM remote of the type taught in Li, such that the smart device, upon using second data representing the OTT media streaming device, identifies a further device that is the OEM remote provided for use with the OTT device. Doing so would simply represent using a known, dedicated OEM remote (Li) as the further device identified via known device data-based discovery (Pandey) in the OTT control framework of Menand, yielding the predictable benefit of coordinated control between the user’s smart device and the OME remote for the same OTT device, e.g., facilitating setup, pairing, or handoff of control.
12. Regarding Claim 4, Menand in view of Pandey further in view of Li discloses The smart device as recited in claim 3,
Menand discloses wherein the OTT media streaming device comprises a set-top box ([0018], “a digital receiver 102 of a user provides access to digital content…the digital receiver 102 is a set-top box”.
13. Claim 9 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 3.
14. Claim 10 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 4.
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.
15. Claim(s) 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menand in view of Candelore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 7895532, Scott et al. (hereinafter Scott).
16. Regarding Claim 5, Menand in view of Candelore discloses The smart device as recited in claim 1,
However, Menand in view of Candelore does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one command comprises a sequence of menu navigation commands for indirectly launching the OTT app.
Further, Scott teaches wherein the at least one command comprises a sequence of menu navigation commands (Col. 23 line 66-col. 24 line 2, “Macros provide a way for the user to perform a combination of tasks quickly. There may be two types of macros supported by the remote control application--system generated macros and user generated macros.”) for indirectly launching the OTT app (Col. 24 lines 1-58, macro is used for “activities” and favorites” (e.g., power on devices, select inputs, tune to channels). Those are end results achieved via a sequence of remote commands).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the OTT-control system of Menand/Candelore to implement the “command” associated with the OTT app icon as a macro comprising a sequence of remote control commands, as taught by Scott, in order to indirectly launch the OTT application via the OTT device’s existing on-screen menu navigation when a direct app-launch command or API is unavailable. Applying known macro/sequence techniques to the app-launch context of Menand yields the predictable benefit of allowing the smart device to support app launching on a broader range of OTT device (including those that only expose simple navigation key codes) while maintain the same UI metaphor (one icon/soft key for the OTT app). This is simply using a known macro mechanism (sequence of navigation commands triggered by one control (in the already-known OTT remote-control environment of Menand, which is a predictable combination of familiar elements performing their known functions, in line with KSR v. Teleflex.
17. Claim 11 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 5.
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.
18. Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menand in view of Candelore as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 11689914, Narayanan et al. (hereinafter Narayanan).
19. Regarding Claim 14, Menand in view of Candelore discloses The non-transitory, computer readable media as recited in claim 7,
However, Menand in view of Candelore does not explicitly disclose wherein the second data is received indirectly from the OTT media streaming device via use of a cloud server.
Further, Narayanan teaches wherein the second data is received indirectly from the OTT media streaming device (Fig. 1: managed device 2 =set-top box or smart media, see col. 4 lines 37-40) via use of a cloud server (Figs. 1, 3; Col. 2 lines 41- 45, “The method includes retrieving, by the client device, user defined capabilities data and managed service defined capabilities data from an Internet-based cloud server; building… a user interface(UI) based upon [that data]…” Col. 5 lines 40-43, “the client device 4 may connect to the internet-based cloud server 101 to obtain a copy the capabilities data for a particular managed device 2”. Indirect, cloud-mediated path: OTT device-> cloud server -> smart device)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the OTT control system as taught in Menand to additionally employ the cloud-based management architecture of Narayanan such that information about the OTT media streaming device (e.g., its capabilities, installed services, or configuration) is uploaded from the OTT device to a cloud server and then retrieved by the smart device from the cloud server, rather than (or in addition to) being obtained only via direct local communication. Doing so would provide well-understood benefits such as enabling configuration and control when the smart device is not on the same local network, facilitating centralized management of multiple OTT device, and allowing service providers to control available features via cloud-hosted data-advantages explicitly recognized in Narayanan’s cloud-based capabilities storage and retrieval. This represents no more than the predictable use of known cloud-mediated device-management techniques (Narayanan) in the existing OTT remote-control architecture of Menand, yielding the claimed arrangement in which second data representative of the OTT media streaming device is received indirectly via a cloud server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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 Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights