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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 19 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a streaming audio service,” “a first streaming audio service,” “a second streaming audio service,” and “the first audio streaming service,” “the second audio streaming service. Examiner construes these terms as interchangeable but recommends unifying the recitations.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments suffice to obviate the objections to the amendment in the NF Action of 8/27/25.
The amendment filed 1/27/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The specification as filed does not discuss the amended subject matter describes a configuration wherein a singular playback queue contains a first audio track of a first streaming service which is being played back and a second audio track of a second, distinct streaming service which is not currently being played back and displays state data with respect to both. The specification appears to only resolve this concept with respect to a singular audio service, rather than a variety of audio services in combination. Further, amended claim 1 recites a “feed service,” which lacks clear antecedent in the specification as filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Applicant’s amendments suffice to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejection in the NF Action of 8/27/25.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Instant amended claims 1, 10, 19 recite a computing system, method, etc. operable to facilitate “presentation of a graphical representation of the first audio track of the first streaming audio service that is in the playback queue for the media playback system and that is currently being played back via the media playback system and the second audio track of the set of audio tracks, the second streaming audio service that is in the playback queue for the media playback system and that is not currently being played back via the media playback system, and (b) presentation of an identification of the media playback system on which the first audio track is currently being played back and also on which the second audio track is queued for playback and not currently being played back on,” particularly with regard to display of diverse streaming services and diverse playback situations for a first playing and second, etc. enqueued audio tracks. The specification appears to only resolve this concept with respect to a singular audio service, rather than a variety of audio services in combination. Further, amended claim 1 recites a “feed service,” which lacks clear antecedent or any discussion in the specification as filed. Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
The specification discusses a plurality of audio services but describes them in the alternative and lacks description of a queue unifying the audio tracks from disparate streaming services.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The subject matter discussed in the written description rejection similarly lacks enablement in the specification for the following reasons:
A. The claim broadly encompasses any of two or more distinct streaming services;
B. The invention requires state synchronization sufficient update active playback and audio tracks queued upon a local system, a server system, and two or more distinct streaming systems;
E. The predictability of performing the claim, particularly in light of the other factors is of reasonable technical complexity and due to factors represented in item F require either clear guidance from the specification or undue experimentation;
F. The specification provides minimal direction beyond the mere mention that data may include indication of the media streaming service (specification at ¶ 119) and as such there exists no instruction of how the system aggregates the information across plural proprietary and diverse API’s comprising diverse metadata schema, etc. into a singular media post;
As such a person having of ordinary skill in the art would be required to perform undue experimentation to bridge the gap between the disclosed general concepts of streaming from one or more streaming services to arrive at the specifics necessary to reasonably and predictably accomplish the conjunctive requirements of a queue and post comprising information from a plurality of different streaming services such to generate dynamic updates of a playback list, queue, etc. in a social media system in the claimed manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claimed subject matter appears distinct over the prior art however for the reasons discussed supra is not considered allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights