Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1121
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 18 PagelD#: 1121
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 1122
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 18 PagelD #: 1122
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`
`Appl. No.
`First Inventor
`Applicant
`Filed
`Title
`Group Art Unit
`Examiner
`Atty Docket No.
`Customer No.
`
`4059
`
`Confirmation No.
`
` 15/687,249
`:
`: David Strober
`:
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`:
`08/25/2017
`:
`PLAY CONTROL OF CONTENT ON A DISPLAY DEVICE
`:
`2173
`: Darrin Hope
`:
` 41197.278581
`:
`149550
`
`VIA EFS-WEB — December 12, 2019
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`Commissionerfor Patents
`P. O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF
`REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT
`UNDER 37 C.F.R.§1.116
`
`Applicant hereby requests a three-month extension of time to respond to the Final
`
`Office Action mailed June 12, 2019, extending the period for response to December 12,
`
`2019. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests
`
`continued examination of
`
`the
`
`above-identified
`
`application. The following is in accordance with the requirements for submission under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.114 (c) and MPEP 706.07(h), Sec. II. In response to the outstanding Final Office Action, please
`
`amend the above-identified application as follows:
`
`Amendments to the Claims: begin on page 2 of this paper.
`
`Summaryof Examiner Interview: begins on page 10 of this paper
`
`Remarks: begin on page 11 of this paper.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 1123
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 18 PagelD #: 1123
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer storage medium storing
`
`computer-useable instructions that, when used by-one-or-mere a first computing device[[s]], cause
`
`
`
`the-one-or-morefirst computing device[[s]] to perform operations-ferremetelpresentine—yartous
`
`
`
`types-ofthe-operationscontent comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`obtaining a synchronization code associated with the first computing
`
`device, wherein the associated synchronization code is stored on a remote server
`
`device;
`
`providing the synchronization code _to_a second computing device in
`
`communication with
`
`the
`
`remote
`
`server
`
`device, wherein
`
`the
`
`provided
`
`synchronization code causes the remote server device to store an association
`
`between the first computing device and the second computing device;
`
`Lo.
`
`7
`
`ine
`
`device:
`
`receiving, from the remote server device, a first message that includes at
`
`least one commandinafirst format,-vhereis the first message [[is]]being received
`
`based at least in part_on the stored association and on a second messageincluding
`
`at least one command in a second format having been sent from the associated
`
`second remete-computing device;
`
`empleyine-selecting a first media player application_from a plurality of
`
`media player applications based _at least in part on the first format of the first
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 1124
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 18 PagelD #: 1124
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`message, the first media player application being selected-eperable to [[load]]play
`
`a first piece of content referenced in the received first message; and
`
`controlling-a-presentatier-ef how the selected first media player application
`
`
`
`
`
`plays the referenced first piece of contentteadedintheemployedfrstmediaplayer
`
`appHeatien based on a first command ofthe at least one commandin thefirst format
`
`
`
`having been includedin the received first message-ferreeognitionbythefrstimedia
`
`lieation.
`
`2.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein [[a]]each command_of the at least one command in the second formatis a
`
`universal command.
`
`3.
`
`(Original)
`
`The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 2,
`
`wherein the first format is different than the second format.
`
`4,
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein the second message is sent_from the associated second computing device to the
`
`remote server device.
`
`5.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein the remote server device is configured to convert the at least one commandin the
`
`second format-s-eeryerted into the at least one commandin the first format basedatleast in part
`
`on the second message including therein a reference to the first piece of content.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 1125
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 18 PagelD #: 1125
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`6.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein the remote server device is configured to convert the at least one commandin the
`
`second format-s-eeryerted into the at least one commandin the first format basedatleast in part
`
`on a referenceto the first media player application having been included in the second message.
`
`7.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein the first media player application is-empleyed_selected based at least in part on
`
`the received first message including therein a referenceto the first media player application.
`
`8.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, wherein controlling-+the-presentatien_ how the selected first media player application plays
`
`the referenced first piece of content includes an execution ofthe first command.
`
`9.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, the operations further comprising:
`
`ebtainineretrieving the first media player application from a remote content
`
`provider based on a determination that the first media player application is not
`
`already-beine-employed selected.
`
`10.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`
`
`claim 9, wherein-+the-estmedia-playerappleationisobtainedfrom-athe remote content provider
`
`that-correspondste is associated with the referencedfirst piece of content.
`
`11.
`
`(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer storage medium of
`
`claim 1, the operations further comprising:
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 1126
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 6 of 18 PagelD #: 1126
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`based on the stored association and while the first media player application
`
`is selected, receiving, from the remote server device, a third message that includes
`
`at least one commandin a third format, wherein the third messageis received based
`
`at least in part on a fourth message including at least one other command in the
`
`second format having been sent from the associated second computing device; and
`
`selecting a second media player application from the plurality of media
`
`player applications based at least in part on the third format of the third message,
`
`the second media player application being selected to play a second piece of content
`
`
`
`referenced in the third message.—whereinthe-connectionwiththeremoteserver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for
`
`remotely
`
`presenting various types of content, comprising:
`
`obtaining, by a content presentation device, a synchronization code
`
`associated with the content presentation device, wherein the
`
`associated
`
`synchronization code is stored on a remote server device:
`
`providing, by the content presentation device, the synchronization code to
`
`a remote computing device in communication with the remote server device,
`
`wherein the provided synchronization code causes the remote server device to store
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 1127
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 7 of 18 PagelD #: 1127
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`an association between the content presentation device and the remote computing
`
`device;
`
`
`
`receiving, by the content presentation device and from the remote server
`
`device, a first message that includesat least one commandina first format, where
`
`the first message[[is]]being received basedat least in part_on the stored association
`
`and on a second messageincluding at least one commandin a second format having
`
`been sent from the_associated remote computing device-assectated-withthe-content
`
`presentationdevice;
`
`emploeyine—selecting, by the content presentation device while [[the]]a
`
`connection [[with]]between the content presentation device and the remote server
`
`device is maintained, a first media player application_from a plurality of media
`
`player applications based at least in part on the first format of the first message, the
`
`first media player application being selected to play-eperabletetead a first piece of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`content-based-atteastin_part-on_thefistpiece-ofcontentbeingreferenced in the
`
`received first message; and
`
`controlling, by the content presentation device,-a-presentatien-of how the
`
`selected first media player application plays the_referenced first piece of content
`
`
`
`
`
`leadedinthe-employedfistmediaplayer appheation based on a first command_of
`
`
`
`the at least one commandin the first format having been included in the received
`
`
`
`first message-fer-reeegnition-bythefrstmediaplayerappheation.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 1128
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 18 PagelD #: 1128
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`13.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 12,
`
`wherein the first media player application is-empleyed selected based-atteast further in part on the
`
`received first message including therein a reference to the first media player application.
`
`14.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 12, the
`
`operations further comprising:
`
`ebtaisine—selecting the first media player application based on a
`
`determination that a second media player application is-being-empleyed currently
`
`selected.
`
`15.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 12,
`
`further _comprising:-wherein—the—firstmedie—playerappheaton_obtained_by_retrieving, by the
`
`content presentation device, the_selected first media player application from a_remote content
`
`
`
`
`
`provider-assectated-withthereferencedfirstpiece-ofeontentbased on the first format of the first
`
`message.
`
`16.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 12,
`
`wherein the remote server device is configured to convert the at least one command in the second
`
`format into the at least one commandin the first format based at least in part on a reference to the
`
`first media player application having been included in the second message, and wherein the first
`
`media player application is selected based further on the at least one commandin the first format
`
`
`
`
`
`having been converted from the second format.the-presentatier-eHthefirstpiece-ofcontentleaded
`
`
`
`4814-2897-9867
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 1129
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 18 PagelD #: 1129
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`17.
`
`(Currently Amended) A content presentation device comprising:
`
`a display;
`
`at least one processor; and
`
`at least one computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions
`
`that, when used bythe at least one processor, cause the at least one processorto:
`
`obtain a synchronization code associated with the content presentation
`
`device, wherein the associated synchronization code is stored on a remote server
`
`device;
`
`provide the synchronization code _to_a remote computing device in
`
`communication with
`
`the
`
`remote
`
`server
`
`device, wherein
`
`the
`
`provided
`
`synchronization code causes the remote server device to store an association
`
`between the content presentation device and the remote computing device;
`
`
`
`receive, from the remote server device, a first message that includes at least
`
`one commandinafirst format, the first message being received based_on the stored
`
`association and on a second messagein the second format sent from the associated
`
`remote computing device;
`
`emptey-select_a first media player application_from a plurality of media
`
`player applications based on the first format of the first message, the first media
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 1130
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 10 of 18 PagelD #: 1130
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`player application being selected to play-eperableteead a first piece of content
`
`referenced in the received first message; and
`
`control-a-presentatien_ef how the selected first media player application
`
`
`
`
`
`plays the referenced first piece of contentteadedintheemployedfrstmediaplayer
`
`appHeatien based on a first command ofthe at least one commandin thefirst format
`
`
`
`having been includedin the received first message-ferreeognitionbythefrstimedia
`
`lieation.
`
`18.
`
`(Currently Amended) The content presentation device of claim 17, wherein
`
`the first media player application is configured to recognize [[a]]each command _ofthe at least one
`
`
`
`commandin the first format+s+eeegnizable-bythefirstmediaplayerappheation.
`
`19.
`
`(Currently Amended) The content presentation device of claim 17, wherein
`
`the second messageis sent_from the associated second computing device to the remote server
`
`device.
`
`20.
`
`(Currently Amended) The content presentation device of claim 18, wherein
`
`the first media player application is-empleyed selected based-atteast+n-part further on the received
`
`first message including therein a reference to the first media player application.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 1131
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 11 of 18 PagelD #: 1131
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`SUMMARY OF EXAMINER INTERVIEW
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`Applicant would like to thank the Examiner for granting an interview on June 26,
`
`2019. During the interview, Applicant discussed proposed amendments to independent claim 1.
`
`No agreement was reached.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 1132
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 12 of 18 PagelD #: 1132
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`The Non-Final Office Action mailed June 12, 2019 has been received and reviewed.
`
`Prior to the present communication, claims 1-20 were pending and claims 1-20 stand rejected.
`
`Each of claims 1-2 and 4-20 has been amended herein. No new matter has been added.
`
`Reconsideration of the subject application is respectfully requested in view of the amendments and
`
`the following remarks.
`
`Rejections based on 35 U.S.C.§102
`
`Claims 1 and 4-20
`
`Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as ostensibly being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130971 to Morris (hereinafter “Morris’”). Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection. As the asserted reference fails to describe, expressly or
`
`inherently, each and every elementrecited in the rejected claims, Applicant respectfully traverses
`
`the rejection, as hereinafter set forth.
`
`Applicant has amended independentclaims1, 12, and 17 to similarly recite, among
`
`other things, “obtaining a synchronization code associated with the first computing device,
`
`wherein the associated synchronization code is stored on a remote server device; providing the
`
`synchronization code to a second computing device in communication with the remote server
`
`device, wherein the provided synchronization code causes the remote server device to store an
`
`association between thefirst computing device and the second computing device; receiving, from
`
`the remote server device, a first message that includes at least one commandinafirst format, the
`
`first message being received based at least in part on the stored association and on a second
`
`message including at least one command in a second format having been sent from the
`
`associated second computing device; selecting a first media player application from a plurality
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 1133
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 13 of 18 PagelD #: 1133
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`of media player applications basedat least in part on the first format of the first message, the
`
`first media player application being selected to play a first piece of content referenced in the
`
`received first message; and controlling how the selectedfirst media player application plays the
`
`referencedfirst piece of content based on a first commandofthe at least one commandinthefirst
`
`format having been includedin the received first message.” Applicant submits that Morris fails to
`
`describe each and every one of the above-recited features.
`
`First and foremost, Applicant submits that Morris does not describe “obtaining a
`
`synchronization code associated with the first computing device, wherein the associated
`
`synchronization code is stored on a remote server device; providing the synchronization code to
`
`a second computing device in communication with the remote server device, wherein the
`
`provided synchronization code causes the remote server device to store an association between
`
`the first computing device and the second computing device.” At best, Morris recites
`
`Settings of the throw application 132 may cause the processor 116
`to send to the display 120 a listing of one or more external display
`devices (e.g., a family room television or a bedroom television).
`Entries in the listing may be stored in a table in the memory 122.
`For each external display device in the table, the table may include
`a network address for a media device that provides media content to
`the external display device.
`
`See Morris, {[0028]. Applicant submits that settings stored in a table is entirely different from
`
`obtaining an associated synchronization codeby a first computing device, which is then provided
`
`by the first computing device to a second computing device in communication with a remote server
`
`device, causing the remote server device to store an association between the first and second
`
`computing devices, as similarly recited in the amended independent claims. For at least these
`
`reasons, Morris fails to anticipate the recited features of at least the amended independentclaims.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 1134
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 14 of 18 PagelD #: 1134
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`Second, Morris fails to describe at least “receiving, from the remote server device,
`
`a first message that includes at least one commandinafirst format, the first message being
`
`received basedat least in part on the stored association and on a second messageincluding at
`
`least one commandin a secondformat having been sentfrom the associated second computing
`
`device.” Morris generally describes technology for sending from an application server a network
`
`address of a media content item to a display device. See Morris, [0068]. If a set top box of the
`
`display device cannot play a format of the content item, then the application server can transcode
`
`the content item to a compatible format and send it to the set top box to be played on the display
`
`device. See id. At best, Morris describes a transcode module that can determine the format ofa
`
`media content item, determinethat a destination cannot play the media content item in the format,
`
`and transcode the media content item into a format compatible with the destination. See Morris,
`
`paragraphs [0026] and [0033-34]. Applicant submits that a first message including at least one
`
`commandinafirst format being received based at least in part on the stored association and on
`
`a second message including at least one commandin a second format having been sent from
`
`the associated second computing device is different from the communication of transcoded media
`
`content based on a determined incompatibility. Applicant’s claims specifically recite “first piece
`
`of content”, which should not be conflated with “messages” or “commands,” though it appears
`
`that the Office conflates “transcoded media content” with one or both claim elements. Applicant’s
`
`claimsrecite further steps, such as selection ofa first media playerto play a first piece of content
`
`referencedin the first message. The claim doesnotrecite playing a received message or playing a
`
`received commandwith a first media player, as would be necessary to reasonably utilize a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation rejection in this instance.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 1135
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 15 of 18 PagelD #: 1135
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`Finally, Applicant submits that Morris does not describe “selecting a first media
`
`player application from a plurality ofmedia player applications basedat least in part on the first
`
`formatof the first message, the first media player application being selected to play a first piece
`
`of content referencedin the received first message; and controlling howtheselectedfirst media
`
`player application plays the referencedfirst piece of content based on a first command ofthe at
`
`least one commandin the first format having been included in the received first message.”
`
`Specifically, Morris fails to describe selecting from a plurality of media player applications based
`
`on the format of a received message. At best, Morris merely describes that “the application server
`
`may determine whether the particular media content item is in a format that can be played by the
`
`particular set top box.” See Morris, [0068]. Applicant submits that the application server of Morris
`
`is not a first computing device or a content presentation device, as required by the amended
`
`independent claims. The “set top box” of Morris does not select a first media player application
`
`from a plurality of media player applications based at least in part on the firstformatof the first
`
`message, nor does the set top box of Morris control how the selected first media player
`
`application plays the referencedfirst piece of content based on a first commandofthe at least
`
`one commandin the first format having been included in the received first message.
`
`Forat least the reasons as detailed hereinabovefor the similar features of amended
`
`independent claims 1, 12, and 17, Morris fails to describe each element recited in amended
`
`independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections of these claimsis
`
`respectfully requested as well, for at least the above-cited reasons. Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20
`
`are believed to be in condition for allowance and such favorable action is respectfully requested.
`
`Applicant further submits that the dependent claims are also allowable for the
`
`additional features recited therein. For instance, claims 9 or 15 recite the retrieval of a first media
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 1136
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 16 of 18 PagelD #: 1136
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`player application from a remote content provider based on (a) determining that the first media
`
`player application is not already selected or (b) the first format of the first message. Applicant
`
`submits that, at best, Morris notes that media content from a content provider can be referenced in
`
`a message. Applicant submits that referenced media contentis different than retrieval of a media
`
`player application from a remote content provider. More so, retrieval of the media player
`
`application based on determiningthat it is not already selected is far removed from the referencing
`
`of media content as in Morris.
`
`Rejections based on 35 U.S.C.§103
`
`Claims 2 and 3
`
`Claims 2 and 3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as ostensibly being
`
`unpatentable over Morris in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0248802 to Mahajan et al.
`
`(hereinafter “Mahajan’”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Applicant submits that
`
`Mahajanfails to cure the deficiencies of Morris, as noted aboveat least with respect to the amended
`
`independent claims. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection, because the cited references,
`
`both alone or in combination,fail to teach or suggestall of the features of the independentclaims
`
`as amended. Specifically, as noted above, Morris is deficient
`
`in describing “obtaining a
`
`synchronization code associated with the first computing device, wherein the associated
`
`synchronization code is stored on a remote server device; providing the synchronization code to
`
`a second computing device in communication with the remote server device, wherein the
`
`provided synchronization code causes the remote server device to store an association between
`
`the first computing device and the second computing device; receiving, from the remote server
`
`device, a first message that includesat least one commandinafirst format, the first message being
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 1137
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 17 of 18 PagelD #: 1137
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`received based at least in part on the stored association and on a second message including at
`
`least one commandin a secondformat having been sentfrom the associated second computing
`
`device; selecting a first media player application from a plurality of media player applications
`
`based at least in part on the first format of the first message, the first media player application
`
`being selected to play a first piece of content referenced in the received first message; and
`
`controlling how the selected first media player application plays the referencedfirst piece of
`
`content based on a first command of the at least one commandin the first format having been
`
`included in the received first message.” Applicant submits that Mahajan is similarly deficient in
`
`teaching these features. Applicant does not concede to the Office’s assertions regarding Mahajan,
`
`and because Mahajan wasonly cited against dependent claims 2-3, not to the independentclaims,
`
`Applicant submits that the claims are allowable because Mahajan doesnot cure the deficiencies of
`
`Morris.
`
`Asthe applied references, both alone and in combination, do not teach or suggest
`
`all features of amended independentclaims 1, 12, and 17, Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection be withdrawn. As claims 2-3 depend directly or indirectly from
`
`amended independent claim ly, Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`rejection to claims 2-3 be withdrawnfor the same reasonsas the amended independentclaim from
`
`which they depend,and for the additional features recited therein.
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 1138
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 40-6 Filed 04/18/24 Page 18 of 18 PagelD #: 1138
`
`Application No. 15/687,249
`Response Filed: 12/12/2019
`Reply to Office Action of: 06/12/2019
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Attorney Docket No. 41197.278581
`
`For at least the reasons stated above, the pending claims are believed to be in
`
`condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawalof the pending rejections and
`
`allowance of the claims. If any issues remain that would prevent issuance of this application, the
`
`Examiner is urged to contact
`
`the undersigned — 816-474-6550 or kbae@shb.com (such
`
`communication via email is herein expressly granted) — to resolve the same. It is believed that all
`
`fees due have been paid. However,if this belief is in error, the Commissioneris hereby authorized
`
`to charge any amount required to Deposit Account No. 19-2112, with reference to Attorney Docket
`
`No. 41197.278581.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/KEITH J. BAE/
`
`Keith J. Bae
`Reg. No. 64,633
`
`KJBY/sw
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACONL.L.P.
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
`816-474-6550 Telephone
`816-421-5547 Fax
`
`48 14-2897-9867
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`