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 . This Office Action is responsive to the communications filed on 9 April 2026. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3,6,11-14 and 17-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3,6,11-14 and 17-18 recite “JavaScript media player(s) ”. However, the original Specification only mentions a “JavaScript reference to control the media player needed to play the selected video ” (See paragraph [0034]). Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cucu et al. (Hereinafter, Cucu, US 2012/0260267 A1) in view of Redford et al. (Hereinafter, Redford, US 8,660, 545 B1 ).
Per claim 1, Cucu discloses a television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023]) capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players to play content selected by a user of a personal computing device(paragraphs [0024-0025]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu’s proxy object(s) 126 are capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players to play content selected by a user of a personal computing device. ), the television comprising:
a display screen (e.g., graphical user interface 117 on display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0014]);
memory containing a software program(e.g., memory 206 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “Computer-readable medium 206 may comprise RAM, ROM, or other memory and in this example embodies code of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, runtime environment 128, and runtime application 129. It will be understood that code 102 may also be stored in computer-readable medium 206 or some other medium.“);
a network interface capable of coupling the television to a network(e.g., I/O 210 as shown in Fig. 2;paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0029] ); and
a processor(e.g., processor(s) 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028] );
wherein the processor is configured by the software program to:
receive a command to play a particular video (paragraph [0020], “As user input events are directed to the elements provided by rendering application 114, proxy object(s) 126 can be updated and used to dispatch appropriate events according to the video rendering API. For example, a "play" or "pause" input to the runtime application can cause corresponding updates to the state of proxy object 126, which dispatches an appropriate command to the browser's video rendering components to begin or pause playback, respectively.”);
determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video(e.g., Block 310 as shown Fig. 3; paragraph [0011], “… In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0038], “In this example, as shown at block 310, in response to a rendering API call, the state of the proxy object can be updated. Then, at block 312 a runtime command is invoked based on the state of the proxy object. However, if getter/setter methods are supported, then a rendering API call can be mapped directly to a call to one or more methods of the runtime to cause the runtime to respond.”; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using the HTML5 video AP to determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video.);
determine whether the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video is presently loaded in the memory of the television(e.g., Block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0038-0039]; paragraphs[0047-0048]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu determines if video rendering API natively supported by the runtime environment, i.e., loaded in memory.);
when the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video is not loaded in the memory of the television, load the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video into the memory of the television(e.g., Block 408 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0048]);
use the specific JavaScript media player to:
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen(paragraph [0014]; paragraphs [0017-0018]; paragraphs [0020-0021]).
Cucu does not expressly disclose stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet.
Redford discloses: stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet(Abstract; column 26, lines 47-56, “ Similarly, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives data from authority server 282 using XML data format over HTTP protocol although in other embodiments, commands are transmitted over sockets using an API of the authority-compatible set-top interface in television 303. Moreover, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives a sequence of frames of video from a content provider 281I using any one of various protocols such as RTSP (real time streaming protocol), HTTP, UDP and any custom format or public format. “; Examiner’s Note: Redford discloses a handheld device displaying a plurality of items in an electronic program guide, of a corresponding plurality of videos available for display on the television via a network. The user can select and stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet as describe in at least claim 1 of Redford.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 2, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 1, further comprising:
a non-volatile storage device containing the specific media player(Cucu, Proxy Object (s) 126 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0025] ; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using proxy objects using script-based getters and setters to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API.) ; and
loading the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video into the memory of the television comprises loading the specific JavaScript media player from the non- volatile storage device into the memory of the television (Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0047-0048]).
Per claim 3, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 1,wherein loading the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video into the memory of the television comprises:
establishing a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface(Redford, e.g., act 804 as shown in Fig. 8A; column 27, lines 56-67 to column 28, lines 1-3; Redford discloses using HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) to establish a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface. );
obtaining JavaScript files via the secure connection (Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0034]; Redford, column 26, lines 35-41; column 35, lines 14-24; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses an HTMLMediaElement API that provide features to allow control of video players programmatically. ); and
storing the JavaScript files in the memory of the television (Cucu, Fig. 1 discloses code 102 being provided rendering application 114; Redford, column 26, lines 35-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 4, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 1,wherein the command to play the particular video is contained within a message received via the network interface(Redford, Abstract, “ The handheld device transmits a video request containing an identification of the user-selected video. The computer system transmits the user-selected video to the television and transmit “; column 25, lines 29-41; column 32, lines 44-56; Examiner’s Note: Fig. 10E illustrates wherein the command to play the particular video 1031 is contained within a message 1036 received via the network interface. ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 5, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 4, wherein the command to play the particular video further comprises a transmission code(Cucu, e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses transmitting code 102 to a device such as a television in block 402 as shown in Fig. 4).
Per claim 6, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to determine that the switch to the specific JavaScript media player is required based upon the transmission code included in the message including the command to play the particular video (Cucu, paragraph [0033]; paragraph [0038]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a markup document can defining getter and setter methods supported by a scripting API ).
Per claim 7, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 4, wherein the message including the command to play the particular video originates at a personal computing device (Redford, e.g., Act 1151 as shown Fig. 11H; column 36, lines 41-62).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 8, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 7, wherein the message including the command to play the particular video is received by the television, via the network interface, from a server system from which the television receives commands(Cucu, paragraph [0014]; paragraphs [0017-0019]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses receiving code 102 in response to an input event directed toward control button 120.).
Per claim 9, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to transmit a message, via the network interface, to the personal computing device confirming that the particular video is playing(Redford, e.g., act 414 as shown in Fig. 6B; column 23, lines 23-35; Examiner’s Note: Redford discloses transmitting identifier information.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 10, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to receive, via the network interface, a message including a command to control playing of the particular video, where the message originates at the personal computing device(Redford, column 8, lines 3-17).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 11, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured by the software program to load a plurality of different JavaScript media players into the memory of the television, where each of the plurality of different JavaScript media players is capable of playing streaming media content from different content providers(Cucu, paragraph [0011], “ In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0018]; paragraph [0033]; Cucu discloses downloading script-based getters and setters that map a plurality of different JavaScript media players to commands to commands of a natively available media player.).
Per claim 12, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 11, wherein the specific JavaScript media player implements a set of protocols and application programming interfaces for controlling the specific JavaScript media player that are distinct from the protocols and application programming interfaces that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different JavaScript media players loaded in the memory of the television (Cucu, paragraphs [0003-0005]; paragraph [0011]; paragraphs [0014-0015]; paragraphs [0033-0034]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses downloading one or more proxy objects 126(i.e., JavaScript media players) that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different JavaScript media players loaded in the memory of the television.).
Per claim 13, Cucu discloses a television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023]) capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players to play content selected by a user of a personal computing device(paragraphs [0024-0025]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu’s proxy object(s) 126 are capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players to play content selected by a user of a personal computing device.), where each downloadable JavaScript media comprises at least one file containing scripts in an interpreted programming language(paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses downloading code 102 including one or more elements 104 invoking a rendering API along with one or more elements 106 invoking a scripting API to set up the proxy objects. ), the television comprising:
a display screen (e.g., graphical user interface 117 on display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0014]);
memory containing a software program and capable of storing a plurality of different JavaScript media players that are each capable of playing streaming media content from different content providers (e.g., memory 206 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “Computer-readable medium 206 may comprise RAM, ROM, or other memory and in this example embodies code of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, runtime environment 128, and runtime application 129. It will be understood that code 102 may also be stored in computer-readable medium 206 or some other medium.“);
a network interface capable of coupling the television to a network(e.g., I/O 210 as shown in Fig. 2;paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0029] ); and
a processor(e.g., processor(s) 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028] );
wherein the processor is configured by the software program to:
receive, via the network interface, a messaged including a command to play a particular video and a transmission code, where the command originates at a personal computing device(paragraph [0020], “As user input events are directed to the elements provided by rendering application 114, proxy object(s) 126 can be updated and used to dispatch appropriate events according to the video rendering API. For example, a "play" or "pause" input to the runtime application can cause corresponding updates to the state of proxy object 126, which dispatches an appropriate command to the browser's video rendering components to begin or pause playback, respectively.”);
determine based upon the transmission code that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video; determine whether the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video is presently loaded in the memory of the television; (e.g., Block 310 as shown Fig. 3; paragraph [0011], “… In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0038], “In this example, as shown at block 310, in response to a rendering API call, the state of the proxy object can be updated. Then, at block 312 a runtime command is invoked based on the state of the proxy object. However, if getter/setter methods are supported, then a rendering API call can be mapped directly to a call to one or more methods of the runtime to cause the runtime to respond.”; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using the HTML5 video AP to determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video.)
when the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video is not loaded in the memory of the television, load the specific JavaScript media player required to play the particular video into the memory of the television(e.g., Block 408 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0048]), where loading the JavaScript media player comprises:
obtaining JavaScript files via the secure connection (Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0034]); and
storing the JavaScript files in the memory of the television(Cucu, Fig. 1 discloses code 102 being provided rendering application 114.); and
interpret scripts in the JavaScript files stored in the memory of the television to cause the specific JavaScript media player (paragraph [0013] ) to:
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen(paragraph [0014]; paragraphs [0017-0018]; paragraphs [0020-0021]).
Cucu does not expressly disclose:
stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet; and
establishing a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface.
Redford discloses:
stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet(Abstract; column 26, lines 47-56, “ Similarly, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives data from authority server 282 using XML data format over HTTP protocol although in other embodiments, commands are transmitted over sockets using an API of the authority-compatible set-top interface in television 303. Moreover, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives a sequence of frames of video from a content provider 281I using any one of various protocols such as RTSP (real time streaming protocol), HTTP, UDP and any custom format or public format. “; Examiner’s Note: Redford discloses a handheld device displaying a plurality of items in an electronic program guide, of a corresponding plurality of videos available for display on the television via a network. The user can select and stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet as describe in at least claim 1 of Redford.); and
establishing a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface(Redford, e.g., act 804 as shown in Fig. 8A; column 27, lines 56-67 to column 28, lines 1-3; Redford discloses using HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) to establish a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface. ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 14, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to determine that the switch to the specific JavaScript media player is required based upon the transmission code included in the message including the command to play the particular video(Cucu, e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0017];paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses transmitting code 102 to a device such as a television in block 402 as shown in Fig. 4; block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0011]; paragraphs [0047-0048]; Examiner’s Note :If a native player is not available, Cucu disclose using a rendering API such as the "HTML5" video API on top of a runtime such as the Flash.).
Per claim 15, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 13, wherein the message including the command to play the particular video is received by the television, via the network interface, from a server system from which the television receives commands(Cucu, e.g., Block 310 as shown Fig. 3; paragraph [0011], “… In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0038], “In this example, as shown at block 310, in response to a rendering API call, the state of the proxy object can be updated. Then, at block 312 a runtime command is invoked based on the state of the proxy object. However, if getter/setter methods are supported, then a rendering API call can be mapped directly to a call to one or more methods of the runtime to cause the runtime to respond.”; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using the HTML5 video AP to determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video.).
Per claim 16, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to receive, via the network interface, a message including a command to control playing of the particular video, where the message originates at the personal computing device(Cucu, paragraphs [0031-0032]; Examiner’s Note: As shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, scripting code is received by a device; Redford, column 8, lines 3-17).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 17, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured by the software program to load a plurality of different JavaScript media players into the memory of the television, where each of the plurality of different JavaScript media players is capable of playing streaming media content from different content providers(Cucu, paragraph [0011], “ In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0018]; paragraph [0033]; Cucu discloses downloading script-based getters and setters that map a plurality of different JavaScript media players to commands to commands of a natively available media player.).
Per claim 18, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 17, wherein the specific JavaScript media player implements a set of protocols and application programming interfaces for controlling the specific JavaScript media player that are distinct from the protocols and application programming interfaces that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different JavaScript media players loaded in the memory of the television (Cucu, paragraphs [0003-0005]; paragraph [0011]; paragraphs [0014-0015]; paragraphs [0033-0034]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses downloading one or more proxy objects 126(i.e., JavaScript media players) that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different JavaScript media players loaded in the memory of the television.).
Per claim 19, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured by the software program to transmit a message, via the network interface, to the personal computing device confirming that the particular video is playing(Redford, e.g., act 414 as shown in Fig. 6B; column 23, lines 23-35; Examiner’s Note: Redford discloses transmitting identifier information.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 20, Cucu discloses a television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023]) capable of playing content using a plurality of different downloadable media players(paragraphs [0024-0025]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu’s proxy object(s) 126 are capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players to play content selected by a user of a personal computing device. ), the television comprising:
a display screen (e.g., graphical user interface 117 on display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0014]);
memory containing a software program(e.g., memory 206 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “Computer-readable medium 206 may comprise RAM, ROM, or other memory and in this example embodies code of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, runtime environment 128, and runtime application 129. It will be understood that code 102 may also be stored in computer-readable medium 206 or some other medium.“);
a network interface capable of coupling the television to a network(e.g., I/O 210 as shown in Fig. 2;paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0029] ); and
a processor(e.g., processor(s) 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028] );
wherein the processor is configured by the software program to:
receive a command(paragraph [0020], “As user input events are directed to the elements provided by rendering application 114, proxy object(s) 126 can be updated and used to dispatch appropriate events according to the video rendering API. For example, a "play" or "pause" input to the runtime application can cause corresponding updates to the state of proxy object 126, which dispatches an appropriate command to the browser's video rendering components to begin or pause playback, respectively.”);
determine that a switch to a specific media player is required in response to the command(e.g., Block 310 as shown Fig. 3; paragraph [0011], “… In some implementations, script-based getters and setters are used to map rendering API calls to runtime calls and to provide rendering API responses based on runtime state changes/events by getting and setting mirrored properties of the <video> API. “; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0038], “In this example, as shown at block 310, in response to a rendering API call, the state of the proxy object can be updated. Then, at block 312 a runtime command is invoked based on the state of the proxy object. However, if getter/setter methods are supported, then a rendering API call can be mapped directly to a call to one or more methods of the runtime to cause the runtime to respond.”; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using the HTML5 video AP to determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video.);
determine whether the specific media player is presently loaded in the memory of the television(e.g., Block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0038-0039]; paragraphs[0047-0048]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu determines if video rendering API natively supported by the runtime environment, i.e., loaded in memory.);
when the specific media player is not loaded in the memory of the television, load the specific media player into the memory of the television(e.g., Block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0038-0039]; paragraphs[0047-0048]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu determines if video rendering API natively supported by the runtime environment, i.e., loaded in memory.), where the specific media player comprises one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language(paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0035]); and
interpret at least one script from the one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language to cause the specific media player to:
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen.
Cucu does not expressly disclose stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet.
Redford discloses: stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet(Abstract; column 26, lines 47-56, “ Similarly, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives data from authority server 282 using XML data format over HTTP protocol although in other embodiments, commands are transmitted over sockets using an API of the authority-compatible set-top interface in television 303. Moreover, in several such embodiments, television 303 receives a sequence of frames of video from a content provider 281I using any one of various protocols such as RTSP (real time streaming protocol), HTTP, UDP and any custom format or public format. “; Examiner’s Note: Redford discloses a handheld device displaying a plurality of items in an electronic program guide, of a corresponding plurality of videos available for display on the television via a network. The user can select and stream the particular video from a content provider via the Internet as describe in at least claim 1 of Redford.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 21, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 20, further comprising:
a non-volatile storage device containing the one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0030]); and
loading the specific media player into the memory of the television comprises loading the one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language from the non- volatile storage device into the memory of the television(Cucu, e.g., block 304 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0032]).
Per claim 22, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 20, wherein loading the specific media player into the memory of the television comprises:
establishing a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface(Redford, e.g., act 804 as shown in Fig. 8A; column 27, lines 56-67 to column 28, lines 1-3; Redford discloses using HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) to establish a secure Internet connection with a server system of an appropriate content provider via the network interface. );
obtaining the one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language via the secure Internet connection(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0034]; Redford, column 26, lines 35-41; column 35, lines 14-24; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses an HTMLMediaElement API that provides features to allow control video players programmatically. ); and
storing the one or more files that contain scripts written in an interpreted scripting language in the memory of the television(Cucu, Fig. 1 discloses code 102 being provided rendering application 114; Redford, column 26, lines 35-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 23, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 20, wherein the command is contained within a message received via the network interface(Redford, Abstract, “ The handheld device transmits a video request containing an identification of the user-selected video. The computer system transmits the user-selected video to the television and transmit “; column 25, lines 29-41; column 32, lines 44-56; Examiner’s Note: Fig. 10E illustrates wherein the command to play the particular video 1031 is contained within a message 1036 received via the network interface. ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 24, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 23, wherein the command further comprises a transmission code(Cucu, e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses transmitting code 102 to a device such as a television in block 402 as shown in Fig. 4).
Per claim 25, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to determine that the switch to the specific media player is required based upon the transmission code included in the message including the command(Cucu, paragraph [0033]; paragraph [0038]).
Per claim 26, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 23, wherein the message including the command originates at a personal computing device(Redford, e.g., Act 1151 as shown Fig. 11H; column 36, lines 41-62).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 27, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 26, wherein the message including the command to play is received by the television, via the network interface, from a server system from which the television receives commands(Cucu, paragraph [0014]; paragraphs [0017-0019]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses receiving code 102 in response to an input event directed toward control button 120.).
Per claim 28, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured by the software program to receive, via the network interface, a message including a command to control playing of the streamed video, where the message originates at a personal computing device (Redford, Act 431 as shown in Fig. 6B; column 22, lines 5-23).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user speech interfaces of Redford with the methods and systems of Cucu for allowing “coordinated displays, of video on the television and supplementary information on the handheld device, occur in a timely manner relative to one another” as suggested by Redford (column 2, lines 45-48).
Per claim 29, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 20, wherein the processor is configured by the software program to load a plurality of different media players into the memory of the television, where each of the plurality of different media players is capable of playing streaming media content from different content providers and comprises one or more files containing scripts written in an interpreted scripting language(Cucu, e.g., block 304 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraphs [0020-0021]; paragraph [0028]; paragraphs [0032-0034]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses HTML document used to reference JavaScript files.).
Per claim 30, Cucu and Redford disclose the television of claim 29, wherein the specific media player implements a set of protocols and application programming interfaces for controlling the specific media player that are distinct from the protocols and application programming interfaces that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different media players loaded in the memory of the television (paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using HTML5 <video> proxy objects to implement a set of protocols and application programming interfaces for controlling the specific media player that are distinct from the protocols and application programming interfaces that are utilized to control the other of the plurality of different media players loaded in the memory of the television.).
Response to Arguments
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9 April 2026, with respect to claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 of 1-30 has been withdrawn.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 1-3, 6, 11-14, and 17-18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that the term "JavaScript media player" is not ambiguous or unclear in its meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art” and the Applicants points to paragraph [0034] in the original specification as providing support for the limitation.
While literal support is not required, the claim must not be so broad or vaguely functional that it fails to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the enablement requirements of 112(a). The claims include the limitations “specific JavaScript media player” and the cited paragraph [0034] refers to a “JavaScript reference to control the media player needed to play the selected video.” Nowhere in the cited paragraphs does Applicant suggest a “specific JavaScript media player.” The cited portion discusses referencing specific JavaScript commands. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date since the Specification lacks a clear definition of “specific JavaScript media player”.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue " neither Cucu nor Redford teaches a television capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players" or "determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video" as recited in claim 1” since “Cucu's proxy objects are not JavaScript media players-they are JavaScript objects that bridge between a rendering API and a runtime environment,” and the Applicant respectfully note that “Cucu's rendering API operates locally on a single device and does not involve switching between different JavaScript media players based on which video needs to be played.”
Examiner disagrees since Cucu discloses rendering application 114 that identifies a specific media player, i.e., proxy object 126 and selects code to control it (paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0018]). Cucu discloses "a television capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players" (paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0034]; paragraphs [0039-0040]). As described in paragraph [0019] switching between different JavaScript media players based on which video needs to be played by providing code 102 configured with suitable scripting elements 106. Moreover, Redford was not relied upon to disclose “a television capable of using a plurality of different downloadable JavaScript media players" or "determine that a switch to a specific JavaScript media player is required in order to play the particular video."
In the present application, Applicants also argue, on pages 7-8 of the remarks, that, “Cucu teaches away from the need to switch between specific media players” because “Cucu's approach is fundamentally incompatible with switching between different JavaScript media players.” Applicant also argues that, “while Cucu is silent as to supporting different media players, Cucu generally teaches away from requiring specific runtime environments (and by extension media players) when playing back video.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Cucu discloses rendering application 114 that identifies a specific media player, i.e., proxy object 126 and selects code to control it (paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0018]). Cucu discloses a rendering application 114 that selects between native rendering 116 or rendering by runtime 130. Cucu discloses providing content files that meet the requirements/capabilities of individual devices (paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0018]).
In view of the above, Examiner submits that claim 1 is not allowable in view of the prior art of record. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, claims 14-19 depend from claim 13, and claims 21-30 depend from claim 20. Independent claims 13 and 20 are not allowable for reasons including reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-30 are not allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho et al. (US 8,937,685 B1) - This invention relates generally to media, particularly to a system and method to overlay videos from multiple sources in a television set.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARRIN HOPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thr - 6:45-4:15, Fri - 6:45-3:15, Alt. Fri Off.
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, Stephen S Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
DARRIN HOPE
Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights