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 .
Examiner’s Initiated Interview
For compact prosecution, Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative on 02/11/2026 and provided a proposed amendment with explanation for the proposed amendment. Applicant denied the proposed amendment during the telephonic conversation on 02/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, each of independent claim 1, 12, 15 recites limitation “timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to a first time at which the trigger term was received and a second timestamp corresponding to a second time after an elapsed….” or limitation “according to a threshold value” (in claim 15), which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention .
Paragraph 0063 and figure 3 (step 370) describes “media playback information can include, for example, timing information corresponding to when, during the presentation of the media content, the query was received, media content identification information, etc.. In the more particular example, the mobile application executing on the mobile device that received the query can receive a beginning timestamp….” . Thus, the underlined text describes the mobile application executing on the mobile device can received both the query and a beginning timestamp….” And media playback information can include timing information….” However, there is nowhere the originally-filed specification describes that the timing information included in the media playback information including a first timestamp and second timestamp as recited in the claims 1, 12, 15.
In addition, the specification does not have support of other limitation such as “…threshold value” as recited in claim 15. Para. 0061 of the specification merely describes “the query phrase can include text inputs received within a particular time period after the trigger term is received”.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al. (US 20150382047) in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 20160092447).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entireties in Venkataraman (see paragraphs 0049, 0051, 0054, 0056, 0074, 0084) including 20100153885 (referred to as Yates), 8046801 (hereinafter referred to as Ellis) are treated as part of the specification of Venkataraman (see MPEP 2163.07 b). Similarly, documents that are directly or indirectly in Van Os in its entirety (see for example, paragraph 0056) are treated as part of the specification of Van Os.
Regarding claim 1, Van Os discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, using a mobile device, a query and a trigger term that corresponds to a request to initiate the query relating to media content being presented at a media playback device (receiving, using mobile device such as user device 102 and/or remote device a query and trigger term (e.g., “Hey Assistant”) that correspond to a request to initiate the query to media content being presented at the media playback device including display 112 – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2, 4B-4C, 5-7, 12, 14, 16, 19, 25, paragraphs 0048, 0051, 0057, 0091, 0093-0095,0120, 0182);
providing, using the mobile device, a request for media playback information to the media playback device (providing, using the user device 102 and/or remote device, a request for media playback information to the media playback device with display device – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 3, 4C, 4E, 18-29, paragraphs 0059, 0085, 0092-0096, 0120);
receiving, at the mobile device, the media playback information including media content identification information related to the media content and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to a first time at which the trigger term was received and a second timestamp corresponding to a second time after an elapsed time period from when the trigger term was received (receiving, at the user device, the media playback information of media content with channel, title, program information ,etc. related to media content and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to the a first at which the trigger term (e.g., “Hey Assistant” was received and a second time corresponding to a second time after an elapsed time from the trigger term “Hey Assistant” to when speaking a query or command is finished – see include, but are not limited to, figures 10-17, 30-31, 33, paragraphs 0091-0097);
in response to receiving the media playback information, the mobile device enabled to cause a search to be performed at a search server that includes the query, the timing information, and the media content identification information (in response to receiving media playback information with channel, program name, link, timestamps, etc., the mobile device enable to cause a search to be performed at a search location such as server system and/or set top box that include the query, the timing, and the media content identification information related to the search query with program – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 10-20, 28a-31, paragraphs 0051,0120, 0121, 0127, 0134); and
receiving and presenting, on a display of the mobile device, a portion of a search result responsive to the search (receiving and presenting, on a display of the user device and/or remote control device, a portion of a search result responsive to the search – see include, but are not limited to, figures 12, 14, paragraphs 0127, 0131).
Van Os does not explicitly disclose the media playback information received at the mobile device from the media playback device.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Venkataraman discloses receiving, at the mobile device from media playback device, the media playback information including media content identification information related to the media content (mobile or remote access device received from the media playback device/primary device/local media television equipment, the media playback information including media identification such as program name, time, etc. related to the media content – see include, but are not limited to, paragraph 0084, Ellis: figures 2a, 2c, 4-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, col. 13, line 52-67, col. 16, line 6-col. 17, line 34), and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to a first time at which the trigger term was received and a second timestamp corresponding to a second time after an elapsed time period from when the trigger term was received (receiving, at mobile device and/or remote access device from the media playback device such as user television equipment or primary user equipment, the media playback information of media content with channel, title, program information ,etc. related to media content and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to the a first at which the trigger term (e.g., command) was received and a second time corresponding to a second time after an elapsed time from the trigger term (e.g., “Command” or trigger signal) to when speaking a query is finished or “Search”/ “action” that is followed the word “Command” – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-8, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, paragraphs 0069, 0080, 0091-0094, 0105, 0107-0108, 0113-0114, Ellis: figures 8, 10-11);
in response to receiving the media playback information, the mobile device enabled to cause a search to be performed at a search server that includes the query, the timing information, and the media content identification information (in response to receiving media playback information, the mobile device/remote access device enabled to cause a search to be performed at a search/remote server that include the query, the timing, and the media content identification information related to the search query with program – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-10, paragraphs 0080, 0091-0094, 0104-0108, 0113-0114); and
receiving and presenting, on a display of the mobile device, a portion of a search result responsive to the search (receiving and presenting, on a display of the mobile/remote access device, a portion of a search result responsive to the search – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-7, 10, paragraphs 0090-0093; Yates: figures 6, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Os with the teachings including receiving, at mobile device from the media display device, media playback information as taught by Venkataraman in order to yield predictable result such as allowing user using mobile device to remotely access program guide by the user (Ellis: col. 2, lines 10-54).
Regarding claim 2, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the search result is determined to be presented on the display of the mobile device based on search popularity information associated with the search result (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 10-12, paragraphs 0051, 0103-0104, 0127; Venkataraman: figures 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0093-0096, 0113-0117). .
Regarding claim 3, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: retrieving the media playback information prior to receiving the query; and
associating the media playback information with the query in response to receiving the trigger term (receiving the media playback information in program guide listing prior to receiving the query, and associated the media playback information with the query in response to receiving the trigger signal/command/Hey Assistant – see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31; Venkataraman: figures 1, 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 4, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request to associate with the media playback device, wherein the media playback device is presenting the media content and executing a media application that exchanges the media playback information with a mobile application executing on the mobile device – see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31; Venkataraman: figures 1, 4-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117; Ellis: figures 10-15);
associating the mobile device with the media playback device; and activating an audio input device associated with the mobile device to receive a plurality of ambient sounds in response to associating with the media playback device, wherein the plurality of ambient sounds (e.g., ambient noise/voice) are converted to a plurality of input terms that include the query and the trigger term (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31, paragraphs 0073, 0085; Venkataraman: figures 1, 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 6, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising extracting the trigger term and the query from the plurality of input terms by processing the plurality of ambient sounds using a speech recognition system (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31, paragraphs 0073, 0085; Venkataraman: figures 1, 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 7, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
requesting additional media playback information from the media application executing on the media playback device; and
transmitting the query, the media playback information, and the additional media playback information to a search system to receive the search result (perform second or further search – see include, but are not limited to, see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31; Venkataraman: figures 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 9, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving requests from a plurality of mobile devices to associate with the media playback device that is presenting the media content;
activating audio capturing devices associated with the portion of the plurality of mobile devices and the media playback device to receive the plurality of ambient sounds from users proximate to the plurality of mobile devices and the media playback device;
determining that a plurality of queries have been received based on the plurality of ambient sounds, wherein each of the plurality of queries includes the trigger term and the query relating to the media content;
obtaining a plurality of search results, wherein each of the plurality of search results is responsive to one of the plurality of queries; and
causing the plurality of search results to be presented (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31, paragraphs 0073, 0085; Venkataraman: figures 1, 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 10, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
associating at least one search result of the plurality of search results with a respective mobile device from which the plurality of ambient sounds including the query was received; and
causing the portion of the search result to be presented on the respective mobile device (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: figures 4E-6, 11-14, 19-20, 29-31, paragraphs 0073, 0085; Venkataraman: figures 1, 5-8, 10, paragraphs 0091-0096, 0105-0108, 0113-0117).
Regarding claim 11, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the elapsed time period is set before at the mobile device before receiving the query and the trigger term (see include, but are not limited to, Van Os: paragraphs 0091-0094; Venkataraman: paragraphs 0091, 0093, 0094, 0105, 0108, 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 12, limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving a query and a trigger term that corresponds to a request to initiate the query relating to media content being presented at a media playback device;
providing a request for media playback information to the media playback device;
receiving, from the media playback device, the media playback information including media content identification information related to the media content and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to a first time at which the trigger term was received and a second timestamp corresponding to a second time after an elapsed time period from when the trigger term was received;
causing a search to be performed at a search server that includes the query, the timing information, and the media content identification information; and receiving and presenting, on a display communicably coupled to the processor, a portion of a search result responsive to the search (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and Van Os: claims 23-28; Venkataraman: figures 3, 9, paragraphs 0026, 0041).
Regarding claims 13-14, additional limitations that correspond to the additional limitations of claims 3, 9 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 9.
Regarding claim 15, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of claims 1 and/or claim 12 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 12, particularly, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses a system (see Van Os: figures 2-3; Venkataraman: figures 3-4), comprising:
a hardware processor of a mobile device (see Van Os: figure 2; Venkataraman: figures 3-4; Ellis: figure 5) configured to:
receive a query and a trigger term that corresponds to a request to initiate the query relating to media content being presented at a media playback device;
provide a request for media playback information to the media playback device;
receive, from the media playback device and in response to the request, the media playback information including media content identification information related to the media content and timing information including a first timestamp corresponding to a first time at which the trigger term was received and a second timestamp corresponding to a second time, after the first time, inputs were received continuously according to a threshold value; cause a search to be performed at a search server that includes the query, the timing information, and the media content identification information; and receive and present, on a display of the mobile device, a portion of a search result responsive to the search, including the query (see Van Os: figures 2-3; Venkataraman: figures 3-4; Ellis: figures 4-5 and discussion in the rejection of claim 1, wherein “threshold value” is interpreted as value associated with start time/time to receive “trigger signal” or “command”/Hey Assistant to the time of “search”/action or end of query/finish speaking – see Van Os: paragraph 0091-0094; Venkataraman: paragraphs 0091, 0096, 0105, 0107, 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 16, Van Os in view of Venkataraman discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the threshold value is set to no more than one second between receiving each text input (e.g., predetermined amount of time such as 500 milliseconds – see Van Os; paragraph 0093).
Regarding claims 17, 19-20, additional limitations of the system that correspond the additional limitations of method in claims 4, 6-7 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 4, 6-7.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10204104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-20 and Patent claims 1-21 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-20 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-21 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., receiving, at a mobile device, a query and a trigger term…) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art rejection above.
Allowance of claims 1-20 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-21 of Patent No. 10204104.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10984038. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-20 and Patent claims 1-21 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-20 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-21 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., receiving, at a mobile device, a query and a trigger term…) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art rejection above.
Allowance of claims 1-20 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-21 of Patent No. 10984038.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12216700. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-20 and Patent claims 1-21 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-20 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-21 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., receiving, at a mobile device, a query and a trigger term…) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art rejection above.
Allowance of claims 1-20 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-21 of Patent No. 12216700.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wheatley et al. (US 9396192) discloses system and method for associating tags with media assets based on verbal input.
Reynolds (US 20150350729) discloses systems and methods for providing recommendations based on pause point in the media asset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
February 21, 2026