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 31 March 2026. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11
Independent claim 1 recites “identifying, using the adapter, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television”.
The limitation of “identifying, using the adapter, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “using the adapter,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using the adapter” language “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding what media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – using the adapter to perform the steps of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”. The adapter in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform “selecting code …” and “executing code…” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 12-16
Independent claim 12 recites “identifying, using the adapter server, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television”.
The limitation of “identifying, using the adapter server, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “using the adapter server,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using the adapter” language “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding what media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – using the adapter to perform the steps of “selecting JavaScript …”, “ sending …”, and “executing …”. The adapter server in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of “selecting JavaScript …”, “ sending …”, and “executing …”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform “selecting JavaScript …”, “ sending …”, and “executing …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-16 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 17-27
Independent claim 17 recites “identifying, using the adapter, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the target device”.
The limitation of “identifying, using the adapter, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the target devic”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “using the adapter,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using the adapter” language “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding what media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – using the adapter to perform the steps of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”. The adapter in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform “selecting code …” and “executing code…” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-27 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
In summary, claims 1-27 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
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 1-3,7-9,11-12,14-15,17-18 and 23-24 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 1-3,7-9,11,17-18 and 23-24 recite an “adapter”. However, the original Specification uses the terms “universal adapter” and “API adapter”. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date.
Claims 12 and 14, 15, recite an “adapter server”. However, the original Specification lacks a description of the claimed “adapter server”. 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 1-5, 9-13,15-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cucu et al. (Hereinafter, Cucu, US 2012/0260267 A1) in view of Reichardt et al. (Hereinafter, Reichardt, US 2005/0172319 A1), and further in view of Maitre et al.(Hereinafter, Maitre, US 2012/0158984 A1 ).
Per claim 1, Cucu discloses a method for playing video (e.g., video content 122 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0023], “FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an illustrative computing device 202 being used to provide video content 122 as shown in FIG. 1 through use of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, and runtime environment 128 …. “ ) on a television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ), comprising:
receiving(e.g., block 402 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0047], “Block 402 represents receiving and parsing, by a browser, an HTML file with a <video> element and scripting elements configured as discussed above …”), at an adapter (e.g., rendering application 114 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013-0015]), a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device and that contains a command to play a particular video on a television (paragraph [0018], “In response to an input event directed toward control button 120, the state of proxy object 126 can be updated. In response to the change in its state, proxy object 126 can invoke functionality of runtime environment 128, such as by providing a play( ) or pause( ) command exposed by runtime environment 128 as part of the runtime environment's external control API ...”; paragraph [0020]), where:
the television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ) comprises a display screen(e.g., display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028], “…The hardware also includes one or more displays 212....” ), a processor(e.g., processors 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph[0028],” In the example shown in FIG. 2, computing device 202 features a data processing hardware element comprising one or more processors 204 and a computer-readable medium (memory 206) interconnected via an interconnect 208, representing internal busses, connections, and the like. Interconnect 208 also connects to I/O components 210, such as universal serial bus (USB), VGA, HDMI, serial, and other I/O connections to other hardware of the computing system ...”), and memory(e.g., computer-readable medium (memory 206) as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028]) capable of storing a plurality of different media players(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. “); and
each of the plurality of different media players is capable of configuring the processor of the television to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources(Abstract; paragraphs [0003-0005]; paragraph [0011-0016]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using a rendering API such as the "HTML5" video API provided on top of a runtime such as the Flash player plug-in to configure a processor of a display device such as a television to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources);
identifying, using the adapter(e.g., rendering application 114 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013-0015]), that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television(e.g., block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraphs [0047-0048]);
selecting code (e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses selecting rendering API 110 or scripting API 112 as shown in Fig. 1.), using the adapter, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television (paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0019]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses invoking a rendering API or scripting API to handle input events controlling playback of video content 122 (e.g., playing/pausing in response to input directed to the triangular "play" button shown in Fig. 1 .); but does not expressly disclose:
receiving, at an adapter, a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device
executing the selected code, on the processor of the television, to cause the specific media player to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet; and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the television.
Reichardt discloses:
receiving(e.g., step 620 as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0078], “…After content from the first source is provided to the user, a voice command from the user may be received indicating a second source (e.g., television channels/audio channels, video-on-demand content, recorded content (e.g., content recorded to a PVR, VCR, CD recorder, DVD recorder, or any other suitable recording device), Internet-delivered content (e.g., websites, video, or any other suitable Internet-delivered content), or any other suitable media source) at step 620..”. ), at an adapter (e.g., interactive media guidance application equipment 130 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0045]), a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device and that contains a command to play a particular video on a television(paragraph [0007] , “Some embodiments may receive voice commands from a user and may perform guidance activities in response to the voice commands. Such guidance activities may include, for example, source selection, browsing, obtaining media information, recording, playing back, or any other suitable guidance activity…” ; paragraph [0010]; paragraph [0081], “ … Thus, by receiving a suitable voice command from a user that specifies source content for browsing, some embodiments may provide the user with a browse overlay containing a list of content for the second source, thereby demonstrating a browsing operation. “; paragraphs [0084- Examiner’s Note: Reichardt discloses generating visual and audible information upon receiving a voice command. Examiner is broadly and reasonably interpreting the visual and audible information to be messages.).
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 Reichardt with the methods and systems of Cucu for increasing the ease with which users can navigate through media or access guidance application features as suggested by Reichardt (paragraph [0003]).
Maitre discloses where: executing the selected code, on the processor of the television (paragraph [0133]), to cause the specific media player to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet (e.g., steps 930-960 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [00135]); and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the television (step 970 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [00135]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 2, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system;
the message is received by the server system via the Internet; and
the method further comprises: sending, by the server system, the selected code to the television via the Internet.
Maitre disclose wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system(e.g., computing device 104 as shown in Fig. 3 in system 100; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0037]; Examiner’s Note: Maitre discloses an adapter 140 at the local computing device 105 in server system 100 that adapts a call to an HTMLMediaElement interface or a call to an HTMLImageElement interface into adapted or translated code that complies with a streaming protocol (e.g., a UPnP streaming protocol specified by DLNA).);
the message is received by the server system via the Internet (e.g., step 210 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0035]); and
the method further comprises: sending, by the server system, the selected code to the television via the Internet(e.g., step 240 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “… The translated code can then be sent via remote playback byte stream 150 to another device such as a digital television, game console, or other digital content playback device for remote playback. “; paragraph [0038]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 3, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the message is received by the server system via the Internet from the personal computing device and provided to the adapter(Maitre, paragraph [0035], “At 210, the system receives markup language code or scripting language code (e.g., code that complies with HTML5) associated with digital content. For example, a user of a local computing device navigates to a web page via a web browser, and the local computing device receives markup language code and/or scripting language code via the web browser.”; paragraphs [0036-0037]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 4, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the personal computing device is a mobile device (Maitre, computing device 105 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0027]; paragraphs [0150-0156]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]). for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 5, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the command to play the particular video on the television is a standard command(Cucu, paragraph [0020]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a “play” and “pause” command.).
Per claim 9, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, wherein selecting code, using the adapter, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television comprises selecting a command from a lookup table based upon the received command and the identification of the specific media player(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraphs [0032-0033]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a JavaScript API to programmatically control the player, allowing for custom applications to be built on top of a runtime environment 128).
Per claim 10, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the selected code is selected from the group consisting of: compiled code, and code written in an interpreted language(Cucu, Abstract; paragraph [0003], “…The processing element can implement a program component that causes the processing element to expose a rendering API not natively supported by the runtime environment, the rendering API invocable by code comprised in a markup document accessed by the processor over the I/O interface ... “; paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses JavaScript which is considered an interpreted language. ).
Per claim 11, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the message is received at the adapter via the Internet(Reichardt, e.g., step 620 as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0078], “…After content from the first source is provided to the user, a voice command from the user may be received indicating a second source (e.g., television channels/audio channels, video-on-demand content, recorded content (e.g., content recorded to a PVR, VCR, CD recorder, DVD recorder, or any other suitable recording device), Internet-delivered content (e.g., websites, video, or any other suitable Internet-delivered content), or any other suitable media source) at step 620..”. ).
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 Reichardt with the methods and systems of Cucu for increasing the ease with which users can navigate through media or access guidance application features as suggested by Reichardt (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 12, Cucu discloses a method for playing video (e.g., video content 122 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0023], “FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an illustrative computing device 202 being used to provide video content 122 as shown in FIG. 1 through use of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, and runtime environment 128 …. “ ) on a television(e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ), comprising:
receiving, at a server system comprising an adapter server, a message from a controller device via the Internet, (e.g., block 402 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0018], “In response to an input event directed toward control button 120, the state of proxy object 126 can be updated. In response to the change in its state, proxy object 126 can invoke functionality of runtime environment 128, such as by providing a play( ) or pause( ) command exposed by runtime environment 128 as part of the runtime environment's external control API ...”; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0047], “Block 402 represents receiving and parsing, by a browser, an HTML file with a <video> element and scripting elements configured as discussed above …”) where the message
a command to play a particular video on a television(paragraph [0018], “In response to an input event directed toward control button 120, the state of proxy object 126 can be updated. In response to the change in its state, proxy object 126 can invoke functionality of runtime environment 128, such as by providing a play( ) or pause( ) command exposed by runtime environment 128 as part of the runtime environment's external control API ...”; paragraph [0020]), where:
the television (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ) comprises a display screen(e.g., display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028], “…The hardware also includes one or more displays 212....” ), a processor(e.g., processors 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph[0028],” In the example shown in FIG. 2, computing device 202 features a data processing hardware element comprising one or more processors 204 and a computer-readable medium (memory 206) interconnected via an interconnect 208, representing internal busses, connections, and the like. Interconnect 208 also connects to I/O components 210, such as universal serial bus (USB), VGA, HDMI, serial, and other I/O connections to other hardware of the computing system ...”), and memory(e.g., computer-readable medium (memory 206) as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028]) capable of storing a plurality of different media players(paragraph [0030], “Computer-readable medium 206 may comprise RAM, ROM, o0r 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. “); and
each of the plurality of different media players is capable of configuring the processor of the television to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources(Abstract; paragraphs [0003-0005]; paragraph [0011-0016]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using a rendering API such as the "HTML5" video API provided on top of a runtime such as the Flash player plug-in to configure a processor of a display device such as a television to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources);
identifying, using the adapter server(e.g., rendering application 114 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013-0015]), that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television(e.g., block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraphs [0047-0048]);
selecting JavaScript (e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses selecting rendering API 110 or scripting API 112 as shown in Fig. 1.), using the adapter server, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television(paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0019]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses invoking a rendering API or scripting API to handle input events controlling playback of video content 122 (e.g., playing/pausing in response to input directed to the triangular "play" button shown in Fig. 1 .); but does not expressly disclose:
where the message is generated in response to a speech input at the controller device and contains:
user account information;
verifying, by the server system, the user account information;
sending, by the server system, the selected JavaScript to the television via the Internet; and
executing the media player, on the processor of the television, based upon the selected JavaScript to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet; and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the television.
Reichardt discloses where the message is generated in response to a speech input at the controller device (e.g., step 620 as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0078], “…After content from the first source is provided to the user, a voice command from the user may be received indicating a second source (e.g., television channels/audio channels, video-on-demand content, recorded content (e.g., content recorded to a PVR, VCR, CD recorder, DVD recorder, or any other suitable recording device), Internet-delivered content (e.g., websites, video, or any other suitable Internet-delivered content), or any other suitable media source) at step 620..”. ) and contains:
user account information(e.g., step 1420 as shown in Fig. 15; paragraph [0102]);
verifying, by the server system(e.g., voice recognition system 435 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0103]), the user account information(paragraph [0102]; paragraph [0105]).
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 Reichardt with the methods and systems of Cucu for increasing the ease with which users can navigate through media or access guidance application features as suggested by Reichardt (paragraph [0003]
Maitre discloses:
sending, by the server system, the selected JavaScript to the television via the Internet(e.g., step 210 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0035],” At 210, the system receives markup language code or scripting language code (e.g., code that complies with HTML5) associated with digital content. For example, a user of a local computing device navigates to a web page via a web browser, and the local computing device receives markup language code and/or scripting language code via the web browser.”; paragraph [0100]); and
executing the media player, on the processor of the television, based upon the selected JavaScript (e.g., steps 210-240 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0034-0044]) to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet(e.g., steps 930-960 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [0135]); and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the television(step 970 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [00135].
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 13, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the command to play the particular video on the television is a standard command(Cucu, paragraph [0020]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a “play” and “pause” command.)..
Per claim 15, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 12, wherein selecting code, using the adapter server, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television comprises selecting a command from a lookup table based upon the received command and the identification of the specific media player(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraphs [0032-0033]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a JavaScript API to programmatically control the player, allowing for custom applications to be built on top of a runtime environment 128).
Per claim 16, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the selected JavaScript is a JavaScript reference to control the media player(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0043]).
Per claim 17, Cucu discloses a method for playing video (e.g., video content 122 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0023], “FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an illustrative computing device 202 being used to provide video content 122 as shown in FIG. 1 through use of rendering application 114, proxy object 126, and runtime environment 128 …. “ ) on a target device (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ), comprising:
receiving(e.g., block 402 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0047], “Block 402 represents receiving and parsing, by a browser, an HTML file with a <video> element and scripting elements configured as discussed above …”), at an adapter (e.g., rendering application 114 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013-0015]), a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device and that contains a command to play a particular video on a target device (paragraph [0018], “In response to an input event directed toward control button 120, the state of proxy object 126 can be updated. In response to the change in its state, proxy object 126 can invoke functionality of runtime environment 128, such as by providing a play( ) or pause( ) command exposed by runtime environment 128 as part of the runtime environment's external control API ...”; paragraph [0020]), where:
the target device (e.g., computing device 202 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0023], “… Other examples of computing device 202 include, but are not limited to, mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, media players, gaming systems, etc.), gaming devices, televisions and television set-top boxes, and embedded systems (e.g., in vehicles, appliances, or other devices). “ ) comprises a display screen(e.g., display 212 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028], “…The hardware also includes one or more displays 212....” ), a processor(e.g., processors 204 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph[0028],” In the example shown in FIG. 2, computing device 202 features a data processing hardware element comprising one or more processors 204 and a computer-readable medium (memory 206) interconnected via an interconnect 208, representing internal busses, connections, and the like. Interconnect 208 also connects to I/O components 210, such as universal serial bus (USB), VGA, HDMI, serial, and other I/O connections to other hardware of the computing system ...”), and memory(e.g., computer-readable medium (memory 206) as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0028]) capable of storing a plurality of different media players(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. “); and
each of the plurality of different media players is capable of configuring the processor of the target device to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources(Abstract; paragraphs [0003-0005]; paragraph [0011-0016]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses using a rendering API such as the "HTML5" video API provided on top of a runtime such as the Flash player plug-in to configure a processor of a display device such as a target device to play content from one of a plurality of different content sources);
identifying, using the adapter(e.g., rendering application 114 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013-0015]), that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the target device(e.g., block 404 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraphs [0047-0048]);
selecting code (e.g., code 102 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses selecting rendering API 110 or scripting API 112 as shown in Fig. 1.), using the adapter, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the target device (paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0019]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses invoking a rendering API or scripting API to handle input events controlling playback of video content 122 (e.g., playing/pausing in response to input directed to the triangular "play" button shown in Fig. 1 .); but does not expressly disclose:
receiving, at an adapter, a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device
executing the selected code, on the processor of the target device, to cause the specific media player to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet; and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the target device.
Reichardt discloses:
receiving(e.g., step 620 as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0078], “…After content from the first source is provided to the user, a voice command from the user may be received indicating a second source (e.g., television channels/audio channels, video-on-demand content, recorded content (e.g., content recorded to a PVR, VCR, CD recorder, DVD recorder, or any other suitable recording device), Internet-delivered content (e.g., websites, video, or any other suitable Internet-delivered content), or any other suitable media source) at step 620..”. ), at an adapter (e.g., interactive media guidance application equipment 130 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0045]), a message generated in response to receipt of a speech input at a personal computing device and that contains a command to play a particular video on a target device(paragraph [0007] , “Some embodiments may receive voice commands from a user and may perform guidance activities in response to the voice commands. Such guidance activities may include, for example, source selection, browsing, obtaining media information, recording, playing back, or any other suitable guidance activity…” ; paragraph [0010]; paragraph [0081], “ … Thus, by receiving a suitable voice command from a user that specifies source content for browsing, some embodiments may provide the user with a browse overlay containing a list of content for the second source, thereby demonstrating a browsing operation. “; paragraphs [0084- Examiner’s Note: Reichardt discloses generating visual and audible information upon receiving a voice command. Examiner is broadly and reasonably interpreting the visual and audible information to be messages.).
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 Reichardt with the methods and systems of Cucu for increasing the ease with which users can navigate through media or access guidance application features as suggested by Reichardt (paragraph [0003]).
Maitre discloses where: executing the selected code, on the processor of the target device (paragraph [0133]), to cause the specific media player to:
stream the particular video from a content provider associated with the specific media player via the Internet (e.g., steps 930-960 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [00135]); and
cause the streamed video to play on the display screen of the target device (step 970 as shown in Fig. 9; paragraph [00135]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 18, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system;
the message is received by the server system via the Internet; and
the method further comprises: sending, by the server system, the selected code to the target device via the Internet.
Maitre disclose wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system(e.g., computing device 104 as shown in Fig. 3 in system 100; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0037]; Examiner’s Note: Maitre discloses an adapter 140 at the local computing device 105 in server system 100 that adapts a call to an HTMLMediaElement interface or a call to an HTMLImageElement interface into adapted or translated code that complies with a streaming protocol (e.g., a UPnP streaming protocol specified by DLNA).);
the message is received by the server system via the Internet (e.g., step 210 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0035]); and
the method further comprises: sending, by the server system, the selected code to the target device via the Internet(e.g., step 240 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “… The translated code can then be sent via remote playback byte stream 150 to another device such as a digital television, game console, or other digital content playback device for remote playback. “; paragraph [0038]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 19, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the message is received by the server system via the Internet from the controller device and provided to the adapter(Maitre, paragraph [0035], “At 210, the system receives markup language code or scripting language code (e.g., code that complies with HTML5) associated with digital content. For example, a user of a local computing device navigates to a web page via a web browser, and the local computing device receives markup language code and/or scripting language code via the web browser.”; paragraphs [0036-0037]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for allowing users to leverage the advantages of each of their devices when accessing the wide variety of digital content available on the Internet as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 20, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 19, wherein the controller device is a mobile device (Maitre, computing device 105 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0027]; paragraphs [0150-0156]).
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 flexible remote playback of Maitre with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]). for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Maitre (paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 21, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the command to play the particular video on the target device is a standard command(Cucu, paragraph [0020]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a “play” and “pause” command.).
Per claim 25, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, wherein selecting code, using the adapter, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the target device comprises selecting a command from a lookup table based upon the received command and the identification of the specific media player(Cucu, paragraph [0013]; paragraphs [0032-0033]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses a JavaScript API to programmatically control the player, allowing for custom applications to be built on top of a runtime environment 128).
Per claim 26, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the selected code is selected from the group consisting of: compiled code, and code written in an interpreted language(Cucu, Abstract; paragraph [0003], “…The processing element can implement a program component that causes the processing element to expose a rendering API not natively supported by the runtime environment, the rendering API invocable by code comprised in a markup document accessed by the processor over the I/O interface ... “; paragraph [0013]; Examiner’s Note: Cucu discloses JavaScript which is considered an interpreted language. ).
Per claim 27, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the message is received at the adapter via the Internet(Reichardt, e.g., step 620 as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0078], “…After content from the first source is provided to the user, a voice command from the user may be received indicating a second source (e.g., television channels/audio channels, video-on-demand content, recorded content (e.g., content recorded to a PVR, VCR, CD recorder, DVD recorder, or any other suitable recording device), Internet-delivered content (e.g., websites, video, or any other suitable Internet-delivered content), or any other suitable media source) at step 620..”. ).
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 Reichardt with the methods and systems of Cucu for increasing the ease with which users can navigate through media or access guidance application features as suggested by Reichardt (paragraph [0003]).
Claims 6-8, 14 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cucu et al. (Hereinafter, Cucu, US 2012/0260267 A1) in view of Reichardt et al. (Hereinafter, Reichardt, US 2005/0172319 A1), Maitre et al.(Hereinafter, Maitre, US 2012/0158984 A1 ), and further in view of Danciu et al.(Hereinafter, Danciu, US 9,490,998 B1 ).
Per claim 6, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein:
the message further comprises account information; and
the method further comprises: performing target verification using the account information.
Danciu disclose wherein:
the message further comprises account information (column 4, lines 21-45; column 5, lines 13-28; column 16, lines 24-46); and
the method further comprises: performing target verification using the account information(e.g., steps 250-258 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-67 to column 19, lines 1-67 ).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre for improving direct communications home electronics such as a target device as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 7, Cucu, Reichardt, Maitre, and Danciu disclose the method of claim 6, wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system(Danciu, e.g., servers 24A-24N as shown in Fig. 1; column 4, lines 58-64);
the message is received by the server system via the Internet (Danciu, column 3, lines 13-33); and
the target verification is performed by the server system(Danciu, column 7, lines 2-6 and lines 11-40).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 8, Cucu, Reichardt, Maitre, and Danciu disclose the method of claim of claim 7, wherein:
the command includes an identifier for the specific media player(Danciu, e.g., step 250 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-65); and
identification, using the adapter, of the specific media player is based upon the identifier(Danciu, step 254 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-67 to column 19, lines 1-7).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 14, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 12, but do not expressly disclose wherein: the command includes an identifier for the specific media player; and; and identification, using the adapter server, of the specific media player is based upon the identifier.
Danciu discloses wherein:
the command includes an identifier for the specific media player (Danciu, e.g., step 250 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-65); and
identification, using the adapter server, of the specific media player is based upon the identifier(Danciu, step 254 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-67 to column 19, lines 1-7).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 22, Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein:
the message further comprises account information; and
the method further comprises: performing target verification using the account information.
Danciu disclose wherein:
the message further comprises account information (column 4, lines 21-45; column 5, lines 13-28; column 16, lines 24-46); and
the method further comprises: performing target verification using the account information(e.g., steps 250-258 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-67 to column 19, lines 1-67 ).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre for improving direct communications home electronics such as a target device as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 23, Cucu, Reichardt, Maitre, and Danciu disclose the method of claim 22, wherein:
the adapter is a server computer within a server system(Danciu, e.g., servers 24A-24N as shown in Fig. 1; column 4, lines 58-64);
the message is received by the server system via the Internet (Danciu, column 3, lines 13-33); and
the target verification is performed by the server system(Danciu, column 7, lines 2-6 and lines 11-40).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Per claim 24, Cucu, Reichardt, Maitre, and Danciu disclose the method of claim of claim 23, wherein:
the command includes an identifier for the specific media player(Danciu, e.g., step 250 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-65); and
identification, using the adapter, of the specific media player is based upon the identifier(Danciu, step 254 as shown in Fig. 9; column 18, lines 63-67 to column 19, lines 1-7).
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 network-based remote control of Danciu with the methods and systems of Cucu and Reichardt for improving direct communications home electronics such as a television as suggested by Danciu (column 1, lines 26-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 101
On pages 2-4 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, since “even assuming, arguendo, that the "identifying" step could be considered a mental process, the claims as a whole integrate any such alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments, because, as discussed above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – using the adapter to perform the steps of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”. The adapter in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of “selecting code …” and “executing code…”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to receive a command, select a media player, and play content. The “adapter”, as drafted, only serves to “organize information,” “manage interactions,” and “receive processing commands.” Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Moreover, the Applicant argues that “the pending claims cover a particular solution” since “the adapter converts commands into media player-specific code, enabling control of different media players from different content sources using a single interface.” Applicant also notes that the Specification notes a universal adapter that is provided to interpret and convert a standard or universal command (e.g., play, pause, etc.) into the specific command recognized by the media player.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a universal adapter that is provided to interpret and convert a standard or universal command (e.g., play, pause, etc.) into the specific command recognized by the media player) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims fail to describe any of the features applicant argues would make the claims eligible under 101. Instead, the claims describe selecting a media player to play a video which is well-known and, therefore, not a technological improvement.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner maintains this rejection.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 112
On page 4 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require literal support for the term "adapter" and note that "the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed"-not whether exact terminology appears.”
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 “identifying, using the adapter, that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television” and “selecting code, using the adapter, to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television" and the Applicant's arguments point to paragraph 0034 in the original specification as providing support for the limitations. However, the cited paragraph refers specifically to a “universal adapter 26… provided to interpret and convert a standard or universal command (e.g., play, pause, etc.) into the specific command recognized by the media player" (paragraph 0034). The subsequent sentences of paragraph 0034 elaborate on this process explaining an API adapter 26 checks and identifies the specific media player that is being requested (paragraph 0035). Nowhere in the cited paragraphs does Applicant suggest an “adapter ” for “identifying … that a specific media player is capable of playing the particular video on the television” and “selecting code …. to control the specific media player based upon the command to play the particular video on the television". While the API adapter and universal adapter are clearly adapters. It is not clear from Applicant’s cited support if they are same as the adapter cited in the claims. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date.
Regarding the term "adapter server" in claim 12, the Applicant argues that the specification clearly describes the adapter functionality as part of a server system. Applicant argues that paragraph [0034] describes that the system "loads the appropriate set of protocols or application programming interfaces (APIs) from its library and converts the incoming commands from the mobile device 20 into the correct JavaScript (or other programming) code."
Examiner disagrees since the Specification fails to disclose an adapter server that is part of a server system. Furthermore, the Specification fails to disclose a server computer. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 103
On pages 5-6 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue “Cucu does not teach an adapter that identifies a specific media player and selects code to control it” since Cucu discloses “determining whether the computing device supports a runtime environment needed to use a runtime application referenced by the HTML file.”
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 [0015]; paragraph [0018]).
In the present application, Applicants also argue, on pages 7 of the remarks, that, “Cucu teaches away from identifying and selecting specific media players” because “Cucu teaches away from providing content files that meet the requirements/capabilities of individual devices.” 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.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, since, as previously stated, 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]).
On page 7, Applicant argues that “neither Reichardt nor Maitre cures the deficiencies of Cucu.”
Examiner disagrees since neither Reichardt nor Maitre was relied upon to disclose the Cucu’s alleged deficiencies.
On page 8, Applicant argues that “Maitre does not teach executing code to cause a specific media player to stream and play video” and “Maitre's translation layer does not identify or select a specific media player, does not select code to control a specific media player, and does not cause a specific media player to stream video from a content provider associated with that specific media player.”
Examiner disagrees since Maitre was not relied upon to teach executing code to cause a specific media player to stream and play video. Moreover, Maitre was not relied upon to teach selecting code to control a specific media player and causing a specific media player to stream video from a content provider associated with that specific media player.
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 2-5, 9-11 depend from claim 1, claims 13, 15-16 depend from claim 12, and claims 18-21 and 25-27 depend from claim 17. Independent claims 12 and 17 are not allowable for reasons including reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-5, 9-13, 15-21, and 25-27 are not allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 6-8, 14, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cucu in view of Reichardt, Maitre, and Danciu. Danciu was not relied upon to cure the alleged deficiencies of Cucu, Reichardt, and Maitre as discussed above. Accordingly, claims 6-8, 14, and 22-24 are not allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McEnroe (US 20070079345 A1) - Television-based client device messaging is described. In an embodiment of television-based client device messaging, a system includes a television-based client device that is identified by an associated phone number to receive a message communicated from a messaging device via the associated phone number.
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