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 FINAL.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 4/7/2026.
Application filed on 3/2/2023 with effective filing date of 9/2/2020 based on foreign priority from Chinese application CN202010908691.0 and PCT application PCT/CN2021/115666.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 4, 11-13, 15-19 have been amended.
Claim 8 was previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 4, 11-13, 15-19 in the amendment filed on 4/7/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued on pages 8-10 for claim 1 that the cited arts TSTR and Matthews do not teach the claimed invention from claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant specifically argues that Matthews does not teach the specific design of a sound groove pattern that is bound to the audio waveform of a multimedia file and can reflect playback progress. The examiner respectfully notes that TSTL and Matthews together teach the argued limitation(s) and claimed invention of claim 1.
The examiner further notes that claim 1 recites a “displaying a record analog image of a multi-media file … wherein the record analog image has a sound groove pattern”, then “displaying a marker of a playback progress … wherein a location of the marker on the sound groove pattern is configured for reflecting the playback progress”, followed by “wherein the record analog image is displayed in a floating window of a functional interface of a client”. First of all, it’s not clear if the functional interface of a client is referring to a functional interface that is controlling the playback of the multi-media file; secondly, the last limitation merely state the record analog image is displayed in the interface, it’s also not explicitly claimed that the marker reflecting the playback progress is displayed in the functional interface. The first two limitations of claim 1 only relates to the third limitation of claim 1 in that the record analog image of the multi-media file is displayed in the functional interface of a client, the claim makes no mention of what functions the functional interface of the client is performing. From the claimed scope of claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretable would include a display of a record analog image of a multimedia file with a marker indicating playback progress, and a second display of a functional interface of a client in a floating window which include the record analog image. The examiner advises further narrowing the scope of claim 1.
TSTL is cited to teach the first two limitations of claim 1 – that (page 2-4, Fig. 2, 4-5) teaches an virtual vinyl record player with a record analog image of a vinyl where a stylus on an tonearm of the record player moves closer to the center of the record player as playback progresses; and Matthews is cited to teach the concept of a thumbnail version of the full size media player including functional controls and what is displayed in the full media player such as album art, visualization content, video, etc. ([0093, 0097-0098] Fig. 7, Fig. 9). Thus, when Matthews’ concept of displaying a thumbnail version of the full functional desktop client, where the thumbnail is a miniature version of the full media player application, is applied/combined to/with TSTL, it would result in a combination of a smaller version of the functional interface of the vinyl record player in a floating window.
For the sake of arguments, and additionally for the purpose of compact prosecution, even if the limitations of claim 1 is interpreted as a functional interface of a client that controls the playback of the multimedia file with a record analog image and a marker reflecting the playback progress, as argued by the applicant, TSTL (page 2-4, Fig. 2, 4-5) and Matthews ([0093, 0097-0098] Fig. 7, Fig. 9) together combined as explained above still teach this narrowed interpretation – the combination would result in a smaller/thumbnail version of the vinyl record player that is a miniature version of the full size player taught by TSTL, displaying both the vinyl record with sound groove pattern, with the position of the stylus on the tonearm indicating playback progress of the vinyl record.
Accordingly, TSTL in view of Matthews teach the claimed invention of claim 1.
The applicant additionally argues for the other two independent claims 9 and 10, as well as all dependent claims that they are allowable for the same reason argued for claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationale set forth above.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over “Vinyl…iPad Record Player.. The Coolest Way To Listen To Music On Your iPad” by The Sound Test Room (Sept 10, 2013, NPL dated 9/23/2024 in the file wrapper, Screenshots (page 1-5) from YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8leOYocOGSs&t=4s, hereinafter TSTR), in view of Matthews et al. (US Pub 20060123353, hereinafter of Matthews).
Per claim 1, TSTR teaches:
A playback control method, comprising:
displaying a record analog image of a multi-media file in a playback process of the multi-media file, wherein the record analog image has a sound groove pattern; and (Page 2, Fig. 2 shows an analog image of a vinyl record is displayed in a playback process for the previously selected music single/media file, where a sound groove pattern is displayed on the vinyl record image);
displaying a marker of a playback progress of the multi-media file on the sound groove pattern according to the playback progress of the multi-media file, wherein a location of the marker on the sound groove pattern is configured for reflecting the playback progress; (Page 3-4, Fig 4-5 show an tonearm on the record player, where the position of the stylus (marker) at the head of the tonearm on the sound groove pattern indicates the playback progress of the music single/media file; Fig 5 shows the position of the stylus/tonearm has moved closer to the center of the record player than Fig. 2 reflecting the playback progress).
Although TSTR teaches a virtual vinyl record player for playing multi-media contents/files with progress indicator where a record analog image of the vinyl with sound groove pattern is displayed (Page 2-4 Fig. 2, 4-5), TSTR does not explicitly teach a floating window: “… wherein the record analog image is displayed in a floating window of a functional interface of a client”.
However, Matthews teaches:
… wherein the ([0093, 0097-0098] Fig. 7 shows a thumbnail 708 displayed in a floating window of a functional desktop client, where the thumbnail is a miniature version of the full media player application; Fig. 9 further shows the thumbnail/floating window can be pinned to remain visible on the display while the cursor is moved away to focus on other applications).
Matthews and TSTR are analogous art because Matthews also teach a media player user interface and application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Matthews and TSTR before him/her, to modify the teachings of TSTR to include the teachings of Matthews so that a floating window of a miniature version of the full size player can be displayed showing the record image current in play. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide continued access to additional information contained in the thumbnail even when the cursor is moved away from the media player to focus on other tasks on the user device, while saving spaces on the display because a smaller version of the media player application is displayed as opposed to the full size window (Matthews [0098]).
Per claim 3, TSTR-Matthews teach all the limitations of claim 1, and they further teach:
acquiring a location selection operation for the sound groove pattern; and (TSTR Page 5 Fig. 7 shows a user picking up the end of the tonearm and putting it down in the middle of the sound groove pattern for the spinning vinyl record);
configuring a playback progress corresponding to a target location selected by the location selection operation on the sound groove pattern to a current playback progress of the multi-media file, and displaying the marker of the current playback progress at the target location. (TSTR Page 5 Fig. 7: video @6:10-6:16 shows the after the user repositioned the tonearm/stylus at a different position on the spinning vinyl record, the music playback resumes at the target location where the stylus was dropped on the vinyl record, and the stylus was displayed at the target location where it was dropped as the current playback of music continues at the target location on the vinyl).
Per claim 4, TSTR-Matthews teach all the limitations of claim 1, and they further teach:
wherein the displaying a record analog image of a multi-media file comprises:
displaying an obtained record analog image having the sound groove pattern; or (TSTR Page 3 Fig. 3-4 show the record analog image, Fig. 3 in stationary form, and Fig. 4 in spinning form, having the sound groove pattern);
displaying a loading process of the sound groove pattern, wherein the loading process of the sound groove pattern is synchronized with a loading process of the multi-media file. (TSTR Page 2-3, Fig. 2 shows a loading process of the music track/media file being synchronized with the loading of the vinyl image including the sound groove pattern, where the vinyl image including the sound groove pattern is loaded onto the record player at the end of the loading for the music track/media file, shown at Fig. 3).
Per claim 5, TSTR-Matthews teach all the limitations of claim 1, and they further teach:
wherein the displaying the marker of the playback progress of the multi-media file on the sound groove pattern according to the playback progress of the multi-media file comprises:
dynamically displaying the marker of the playback progress on the sound groove pattern while playing the multi-media file, wherein the marker comprises a stylus pattern or a pickup pattern. (TSTR Page 3-4, Fig. 4-5 shows a stylus pattern (marker) at the end of the tonearm dynamically progresses toward the center of the record player on the sound groove pattern while the music single/media file is being played back).
Per claim 6, TSTR-Matthews teach all the limitations of claim 5, and they further teach:
acquiring a rotational speed setting operation for the marker; and (TSTR Page 4 Fig. 5 shows a rotation speed setting at the right side of the UI as a dial, where the current setting is at 45 rpm; Fig. 6 shows a change in rotational speed setting to 33 rpm);
wherein dynamically displaying the marker of the playback progress on the sound groove pattern comprises:
dynamically displaying the marker of the playback progress on the sound groove pattern according to a rotational speed set by the rotational speed setting operation, wherein the rotational speed corresponds to a playback speed of the multi-media file. (TSTR Page 4 Fig. 6 shows a change in rpm/rotational speed setting, where the stylus/tonearm (marker) is dynamically displayed on the spinning record with sound groove pattern based on the current setting of the rotational speed, where the rotation speed corresponds to playback speed of the music single/media file as the playback slows down when the rotational speed is changed to 33 from 45 rpm).
Per claim 7, TSTR-Matthews teach all the limitations of claim 5, and they further teach:
further comprising:
in response to the marker comprising the stylus pattern, dynamically displaying a tone arm pattern while displaying the record analog image; (TSTR Page 3 Fig. 4 shows the vinyl app displaying both a tonearm and a stylus (marker) at the end of the tonearm while displaying and playing back the selected music single/media file);
wherein the tone arm pattern is connected to the stylus pattern, and the stylus pattern is located at a target location corresponding to a current playback progress of the multi-media file on the sound groove pattern in a dynamic displaying process of the stylus pattern. (TSTR Page 3-4, Fig. 4-5 shows the tonearm is connected to the stylus at the end of the tonearm, and where the location of the stylus on spinning record image with the sound groove pattern changes dynamically based on current playback progress of the music single/media file – Fig. 5 show the stylus is moving closer to the center of the record image than Fig. 4).
Per claim 9, claim 9 is a system claim with a processor and a memory (Page 1 Fig. 1 shows an iPad which includes a processor and memory) that performs a method with limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 10, claim 10 is a medium claim with a medium (Page 1 Fig. 1 shows an iPad which includes memory) that stores instructions for a method with limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claims 12-16, claims 12-16 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 3-7 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claims 18-20, claims 18-20 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 3-5 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over TSTR, in view of Matthews, and Robinson (US Pub 20080074486, hereinafter Robinson).
Per claim 2, TSTR-Matthews do not explicitly teach mapping an audio waveform onto a sound groove track “obtaining the sound groove pattern by mapping an audio waveform of the multi-media file onto a sound groove track“.
However, Robinson teaches:
obtaining the sound groove pattern by mapping an audio waveform of the multi-media file onto a sound groove track. ([0009-0010, 0012, 0030-0033] Fig. 1: the record image generated comprises a plurality of arcs in radial form imitating the appearance of a vinyl record, where the arcs is displayed with visual identifier representing the audio parameter such as sound modulation, i.e. groove modulations reflecting the actual audio content such as low modulation for silence).
Robinson and TSTR-Matthews are analogous art because they both teach vinyl record playback method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Robinson and TSTR-Matthews before him/her, to modify the teachings of TSTR-Matthews to include the teachings of Robinson so that the sound groove pattern can be reflective of the audio modulation of the media file as it did on actual vinyl record. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide an image of vinyl record disk with displayed audio modulation as the groove pattern in a spiral radial to better emulate the real vinyl record, which enhance enjoyment of the music and help finding features of interest in the recording with greater precision than conventional method while providing easily manipulated overview of the entire audio recording (Robinson [0007-0008]).
Per claims 11, 17, claims 11 and 17 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2, and are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Application Publications & US Patents
US 20100014390 A1
Flum; Alan
Control device for manipulating e.g. digital audio information, has processing unit arranged for manipulating portion of audio track to be played based on position touched by user on rotatable structure
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights