DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on March 19, 2026, in which paragraphs [0091] and [0092] of instant Specification have been amended to correct minor informalities, and also in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on September 16, 2025, in which claims 1-20 have been canceled, and claims 21-40 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are pending and presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 21-40 are pending, of which claims 21, 22, 28-30 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 39 and 40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement, filed July 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “require the electronic device to demonstrate possession of a long-term private key corresponding to a long-term public key that was exchanged during pair setup” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is not readily understood as to which “electronic device” is being referenced by “the electronic device,” there being no prior introduction/recitation of “an electronic device”. In particular, while independent claim 35 is itself directed to a “device” and also recites a “second electronic device” (emphasis added), at lines 4-5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, nonetheless in no place within independent claim 35, (of which dependent claim 39 indirectly depends from), or any of dependent claims 36-38 for that matter, is an “electronic device” (emphasis added), introduced and/or being recited. Put otherwise, each of claims 35-38 either recite and make reference to the “device” (referring to the “device” of independent claim 35) or the “second electronic device” (referring to the “second electronic device” with which the communication session is to be established over the companion link). However, there is no prior recitation of an “electronic device” (emphasis added). Examiner notes a distinction between claim breadth versus claim definiteness, and notes the sharp contrast with dependent claim 25. That is, while dependent claim 25 also recites “requiring the electronic device,” nevertheless, claim 25 is definite, as this is merely a matter of breadth, given that independent claim 21 (of which dependent claim 25 indirectly depends from) also recites or at least introduces an “electronic device” on line 2 (i.e., determining, by “an electronic device”). There is a lack of antecedent basis and/or inconsistent terminology and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be understood as written. Dependent claim 40 fails to remedy the deficiencies of dependent claim 39; therefore, it is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 21, 22, 28-30 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0117586 A1), hereinafter “McCoy,” in view of McLaughlin et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0201499 A1), hereinafter “McLaughlin”.
Regarding claim 35, McCoy discloses a device (content playback device 12) (McCoy, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0032] and [0033]) comprising: a memory (one or more computer-readable storage media such as but not limited to RAM-based storage, e.g., a chip implementing dynamic random access memory (DRAM), flash memory, or disk-based storage) (McCoy, paragraph [0033]); and at least one processor (processor that controls a visual display and an audio renderer such as a sound processor and one or more speakers, and have access to the one or more computer-readable storage media) (McCoy, paragraph [0033]) configured to: determine that a communication session is to be established with a second electronic device over a companion link (wherein a second display 14i (e.g., such as one of second displays 14a-14c - See FIG. 1) uses a local content playback device IP address to select a content playback device 12 for content playback. That is, McCoy teaches that there may be multiple such content playback devices 12, and as such, different such content playback devices 12 may be selected. For example, if the chosen content playback device 12 is an IPTV, video services may be returned. If the chosen content playback device 12 is an audio system, audio services may be returned. For clarity, Examiner maps the recited “device” of claim 1 to the disclosed content playback device 12, as this device (one of a potential plurality of such content playback devices 12) is selected for playing back content. Responsive to a user selection, the second display 14i sends a command to the content playback device 12 to access and play back the selection) (McCoy, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0037] and [0038]); attempt a discovery of the second electronic device via a local network (wherein rather than retrieving and storing the local IP address of the second display 14i on the server, McCoy teaches that other ways of discovering the second display 14i are also possible, e.g., using a broadcast method within the local network. That is, McCoy discloses and suggests that compatible content playback devices 12 that recognize the broadcast message will respond with their necessary credentials and information to indicate their compliance with the web application for the second display 14i) (McCoy, FIG, 1, paragraph [0080]); upon discovery of the second electronic device on the local network, establish a connection with the second electronic device over the local network (wherein the compatible and selected content playback device 12 is connected to the second display 14i for playing back the selected content) (McCoy, paragraph [0038]); establish a companion link session with the second electronic device (wherein again, proxy server 22, responsive to reception of correct login information from the content playback device 12, returns the local IP address of the content playback device 12 to the second display 14i, because the same has previously been registered to a user account in which such information is maintained. The proxy server 22 may also return a list of content playback devices on the local network, responsive to which the second display 14i may select one for content playback. In turn, each second display 14i uses the local content playback device address to access the content playback device 12 directly to request information about the content playback device 12, which information is returned from the content playback device 12 to the second display 14i such that the local address of the content playback device 12 need not be globally addressable. Again, the second display 14i, using the local IP address returned as noted above, accesses the content playback device directly, in the sense of communicating through the local network. McCoy teaches that to select a particular content playback device 12, the second display 14i requests information about the content playback device 12 at state 70 (See also FIG. 2), including language information, digital rights management (DRM) information, etc., as desired, which information is returned from the content playback device to the second display 14i at state 72 (See again, FIG. 2). Since the second display 14i knows the IP address of the content playback device 12 and consequently communicates directly with the content playback device 12, the second display 14i communicates using a local web address of the content playback device 12 that need not be globally addressable, and may so communicate as long as the second display 14i and content playback device 12 are on the same local network) (McCoy, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0037] and [0046]), wherein the companion link is a transport agnostic communication link for device to device connection over a common network connection or via a direct wireless connection (wherein the second display 14i may transmit a request to the content playback device 12 that it itself formulates, and this transmission may be by way of the local network, the internet generally, or via other means such as other wired or wireless transmission schemes, including via USB, IR, Bluetooth®, or any other schemes) (McCoy, FIG. 1, paragraph [0039]). McCoy does not explicitly disclose to verify establishment of the connection with the second electronic device; and upon verification of the establishment of the connection, establish a verified companion link session with the second electronic device. However in an analogous art, McLaughlin to verify establishment of a connection with a second electronic device (wherein with reference to FIG. 4, McLaughlin discloses a flow diagram illustrating a process 400 for performing discovery and connection between a controller and an accessory (See also FIG. 2). Assuming that controller 202 determines that a uniform accessory protocol pairing should be established, at blocks 424 and 426 (See FIG. 4), McLaughlin teaches that controller 202 and accessory 204 can establish a uniform accessory protocol pairing, e.g., using a pair setup process that can include securely exchanging long-term public keys that can be used to authenticate accessory 204 to controller 202 and vice versa upon subsequent reconnection) (McLaughlin, FIGS. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0061] and [0065]); and upon verification of the establishment of the connection, establish a verified companion link session with the second electronic device (wherein assuming that the uniform accessory protocol pairing is successfully established, then at blocks 428 and 430 (See again, FIG. 4), controller 202 and accessory 204 can establish a uniform accessory protocol pair-verified session, e.g., using a pair verify process. More particularly, McLaughlin teaches that a pair verify process can include mutual authentication and establishing a short-term shared secret from which session keys can be generated. Within the pair verified session, the session keys can be used to encrypt communications between controller 202 and accessory 204, providing trust as to both the source of the communication and the absence of any tampering with the original message) (McLaughlin, FIGS. 2 and 4, paragraph [0065]). McCoy and McLaughlin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, remote control systems for device management in wireless communications systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McCoy and McLaughlin before him or her, to modify the system 10 of McCoy to include the additional limitations of to verify establishment of the connection with the second electronic device; and upon verification of the establishment of the connection, establish a verified companion link session with the second electronic device, as disclosed in McLaughlin, with reasonable expectation that this would result in an improved communication system 10, having the added benefit of increased security between paired devices (e.g., such as controllers and accessory devices/content playback devices) by providing trust as to both the source of a communication and the absence of any tampering with an original message (See McLaughlin, paragraph [0065]). This method of improving the media playback system of McCoy was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of McLaughlin. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of McCoy with McLaughlin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 35.
Claim 29 is directed to a “non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” substantially as recited in “device” claim 35 above, and does not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, as McCoy-McLaughlin discloses such a “non-transitory machine-readable medium” (non-transitory computer-readable medium) (McCoy, paragraphs [0013], [0016] and [0033]), claim 29 is thus rejected under the same rationale.
In addition, claim 21 includes a “method” claim that performs limitations substantially as recited in “device” claim 35 above, and does not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 36, McCoy-McLaughlin discloses the device of claim 35, wherein the communication session is to be established at device initialization of the device (wherein at states 52 and 58, respectively, a user turns on the content playback device 12 and second display 14i) (McCoy, paragraphs [0042] and [0043]), the communication session is to be established to re-establish a connection that has been disconnected, or the communication session is to be established to re-establish a connection that has timed-out due to non-use. The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 35 is also applied to claim 36.
Claims 22 and 30 include a “method” claim and a “non-transitory machine-readable medium” claim, respectively, that perform limitations substantially as recited in “device” claim 36, and do not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 28, McCoy-McLaughlin discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: establishing the companion link as the direct wireless connection when the electronic device is within a direct wireless communication range of the second electronic device (again, using a Bluetooth® connection) (McCoy, paragraph [0039]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 35 is also applied to claim 28.
Regarding claim 33, McCoy-McLaughlin discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the operations further comprise: requiring the second electronic device to demonstrate possession of a long-term private key corresponding to a long-term public key that was exchanged during pair setup (wherein McLaughlin further teaches that pair setup can include an out-of-band information exchange (e.g., the user can enter a numerical or alphanumeric PIN or passcode provided by accessory 104 into an interface provided by controller 102) to establish a shared secret. This shared secret can be used to support secure exchange of “long-term” public keys between controller 102 and accessory 104, and each device can store the long-term public key received from the other, so that an established pairing can be persistent. The pair verify process can further include each device demonstrating that it is in possession of a long-term private key corresponding to the long-term public key that was exchanged during pair setup) (McLaughlin, paragraph [0036]). As discussed and shown above, McCoy and McLaughlin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, remote control systems for device management in wireless communications systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McCoy and McLaughlin before him or her, to modify the system 10 of McCoy to include the additional limitations of requiring the second electronic device to demonstrate possession of a long-term private key corresponding to a long-term public key that was exchanged during pair setup, as disclosed in McLaughlin, with reasonable expectation that this would result in an improved communication system 10, having the added benefit of providing for a persistent established pairing with added security (See McLaughlin, paragraph [0036]). This method of improving the media playback system of McCoy was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of McLaughlin. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of McCoy with McLaughlin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, McCoy-McLaughlin discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 33, the operations further comprise: encrypting communications occurring through the verified companion link session using a shared secret or a session key (wherein as discussed and shown above, the pair setup can include an out-of-band information exchange (e.g., the user can enter a numerical or alphanumeric PIN or passcode provided by accessory 104 into an interface provided by controller 102) to establish a shared secret, particularly to support the secure exchange of “long-term” public keys) (McLaughlin, paragraph [0036]). Again, McCoy and McLaughlin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, remote control systems for device management in wireless communications systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McCoy and McLaughlin before him or her, to modify the system 10 of McCoy to include the additional limitations of encrypting communications occurring through the verified companion link session using a shared secret or a session key, as disclosed in McLaughlin, with reasonable expectation that this would result in an improved communication system 10, having the added benefit of providing for “pair-verified” sessions, having increased security with end-to-end encryption (See McLaughlin, paragraph [0036]). This method of improving the media playback system of McCoy was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of McLaughlin. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of McCoy with McLaughlin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 34.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 23-27, 31, 32, 37 and 38 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.
12. Claims 39 and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fail to explicitly disclose, teach, and/or suggest the features and limitations of in response to failing to discover the second electronic device, determining whether a remote identifier is available; and upon determining that the remote identifier is available, establishing a remote connection with the second electronic device, as recited in dependent claims 23, 31 and 37. While the primary reference to McCoy teaches transmissions over a local network (e.g., such as local network 16 - See again, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0018] and [0037]), nonetheless, McCoy teaches against in response to failing to discover the second electronic device, determining whether a remote identifier is available; and upon determining that the remote identifier is available, establishing a remote connection with the second electronic device. In particular, McCoy teaches that though the second display 14i is configured to address the content playback device 12 at a non-local level, e.g., at the server level, and as such, that the second display 14i may be physically located virtually anywhere and still be able to queue content or to command the content playback device 12 to play content, nevertheless, however, server load would increase over the case where the second display and content playback device communicated directly or over a local network. As such, modifying McCoy to include the limitations of in response to failing to discover the second electronic device, determining whether a remote identifier is available; and upon determining that the remote identifier is available, establishing a remote connection with the second electronic device would teach away from, or significantly alter the principle of operation of McCoy, and to do so would otherwise rely on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
14. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For instance, ROBBIN (USPGPUB 2011/0264732) discloses a network media device that pulls multimedia data from one or more sources (e.g., a multimedia website or a multimedia server computer) at a first time, stores it to long-term storage within the device and transmits the stored multimedia data to one or more designated multimedia playback devices at a second time (See Abstract). Bakar (USPGPUB 2016/0301678) discloses methods, systems, and media for providing access control for a computing device. In some implementations, methods for providing access control for a computing device include: receiving a first request to authenticate the computing device from a first sender device; authenticating the computing device based at least in part on the first request; transmitting a session identifier and a session key to the first sender device; receiving an application identifier associated with the sender device from the computing device; determining, using a hardware processor, whether a sender application executing on the sender device is valid based at least in part on the application identifier; and transmitting the session key to the computing device in response to determining that the sender application is valid (See Abstract).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
