DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
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 in response to Applicant’s reply filed 4/30/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022), further in view of Shumay (US Patent Pub 2014/0143212).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022), further in view of Mok et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0114985) (Mok).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022).
In regards to claim 1, Kuper discloses a cloud-based computing system comprising:
a. a network interface (Kuper at para. 0117);
b. at least one processor (Kuper at para. 0083);
c. at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system (Kuper at para. 0041) is configured to:
i. receive, via the network interface, metadata for a plurality of audio tracks comprising a first media item and a second media item, the metadata comprising first metadata of the first media item and second metadata of the second media item, wherein the metadata excludes (i) data indicating at least one source of the first media item and (ii) data indicating at least one source of the second media item (Kuper at paras. 0016, 0018)1;
ii. perform a first query of at least one database for audio tracks matching the first metadata at a first streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0018, 0027, 0034, 0036)2;
iii. receive, as a result of the first query, a first uniform resource identifier indicating a particular location of a first audio track corresponding to the first media item at one or more servers of the first streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0036, 0087)3;
iv. add the first uniform resource identifier to a playback queue, wherein at least one playback device of a media playback system is configured to playback audio tracks from the playback queue via streaming the audio tracks from respective sources indicated by uniform resource identifiers in the playback queue (Kuper at paras. 0071-72, 0087)4;
v. perform a second query of the at least one database for audio tracks matching the second metadata at the first streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0018, 0027, 0034, 0036)5;
vi. determine, as a result of the second query, the user does not have a subscription to the first streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0026, 0047)6;
vii. upon determining that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service because the user does not have a subscription, perform a third query of the at least one database for audio tracks matching the second metadata at a second streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0026, 0034, 0036, 0047, 0076-78)7;
viii. receive, as a result of the third query, a second uniform resource identifier indicating a particular location of a second audio track corresponding to the second media item at one or more servers of the second streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0036, 0087)8;
ix. add the second uniform resource identifier to the playback queue (Kuper at paras. 0071-72, 0087)9; and
x. cause, via the network interface, the at least one playback device to play back at least a portion of the playback queue. Kuper at paras. 0072, 0087, 0092-93.10
Kuper does not expressly disclose determining, as a result of the second query, that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service. However, as noted above, Kuper does disclose determining that the user simply does not have a subscription for a service or access on a primary service would be expensive.
Martin discloses a system and method for sharing/transferring a playlist (i.e., playback queue) from one streaming service to another. The method involves querying music libraries of a first service and a second service, if the first service does not allow access to a media item or the media item is not available at the first service. The method further includes querying a compatibility library to determine songs compatible with a given playlist on different services and returning locations to the player for media playback. Martin discloses determining that a media item on a playlist is not accessible based on user subscriptions/access (i.e., unavailable from the first streaming audio service) and searching other services to which the user has access to find and access the media item on the playlist. Martin at paras. 0019, 0021-26, 0031-32, 0056.
Kuper and Martin are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of determining streaming services to play a media item.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the features of determining, as a result of the second query, that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service, as disclosed by Martin.
The motivation for doing so would have been because to allow playback of music without interruption. Martin para. 0017.
In regards to claim 2, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein a particular account of the first streaming audio service is configured with the media playback system (Martin at paras. 0018-19)11, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to determine, as the result of the second query, that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: determine, as a result of the second query, that one or more audio tracks corresponding to the second media item are unavailable to the particular account of the first streaming audio service. Martin at paras. 0018-19, 0024, 0029.12
In regards to claim 4, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to perform the third query of the at least one database comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to:
a. determine that the second metadata matches a particular audio track that is not available within a library of the second streaming audio service (Kuper at paras. 0019-21)13;
b. determine, via the at least one database, that metadata of the second audio track matches at least a portion of the second metadata (Kuper at paras. 0019-21)14; and
c. return, to the third query, the second uniform resource identifier indicating the particular location of the second audio track. Kuper at paras. 0019-21.15
In regards to claim 6, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one database comprises a database on a remote server (Kuper at Fig. 4-412; Martin at Fig. 11)16, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to perform the first query of the at least one database comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: send, via the network interface to the remote server, data representing the first query of the at least one database. Kuper at paras. 0077-78; Martin at paras. 0062, 0064.17
In regards to claim 7, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to receive the metadata for the plurality of audio tracks comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: receive, via the network interface, a playlist of media items comprising the first media item and the second media item. Kuper at paras. 0016-17.18
In regards to claim 8, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one playback device comprises multiple playback devices configured in a synchrony group (Kuper at para. 0052)19, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to cause the at least one playback device to play back at least the portion of the playback queue comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: cause the multiple playback devices of the synchrony group to play back at least the portion of the playback queue in synchrony. Kuper at para. 0053.20
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 are essentially the same as claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8, respectively, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium (Kuper at para. 0041). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are essentially the same as claims 1, 2, and 4, respectively, in the form of a method. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022), further in view of Shumay (US Patent Pub 2014/0143212).
In regards to claim 3, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to determine, as the result of the second query, that the second audio track is unavailable from the first streaming audio service comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor but does not expressly disclose the cloud-based computing system is configured to: determine, as a result of the second query, that a music library of the first streaming audio service excludes audio tracks corresponding to the second media item.
Shumay discloses determining that a media item is inaccessible at a provider (i.e., first streaming audio service) because it’s not playable in the country of the user (i.e., music library excludes … the second media item). Shumay at para. 0052.
Kuper, Martin, and Shumay are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of determining streaming services to play a media item.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuper in view of Martin to add the features of the cloud-based computing system is configured to: determine, as a result of the second query, that a music library of the first streaming audio service excludes audio tracks corresponding to the second media item, as disclosed by Shumay.
The motivation for doing so would have been because to handle situations where music is not available to a user at a particular service to which they have access to, but can be found on a different service, which the user has access to.
Claims 11 and 19 are essentially the same as claim 3 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium and a method, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuper (US Patent Pub 2013/0073584), in view of Martin (US Patent Pub 2015/0113022), further in view of Mok et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0114985) (Mok).
In regards to claim 5, Kuper in view of Martin discloses the cloud-based computing system of claim 1, wherein the first streaming audio service provides an on-demand library of streamable audio tracks (Martin at para. 0019), wherein the second streaming audio service provides Internet radio stations such that individual audio tracks are not streamable on-demand (Kuper at paras. 0066, 0072, 0107), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to receive, as the result of the third query, the second uniform resource identifier indicating the particular location of the second audio track but does not expressly disclose program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: receive, as a result of the third query, a particular second uniform resource identifier indicating a particular location of an Internet radio station seeded based on the second audio track.
As shown above, Kuper discloses streaming provider being Internet radio services. Further, the combination of Kuper in view of Martin discloses searching a database to identify a source for a media item of a given playlist and returning the source, which can be an Internet radio station. What is not expressly disclosed is the returned source is for an Internet radio station seeded based on the media item.
Mok discloses a system and method for creating personalized media stations for Internet radio. The method creates a station based on a seed song, provided by a user, and rules for creating the station based on user preferences and stored rules. Mok at paras. 0034, 0097. The generated media station using the provided song as a seed is then returned to the user for playback. Mok at paras. 0120-21.
Kuper, Martin, and Mok are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of streaming media services.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuper in view of Martin to add the features of program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the cloud-based computing system is configured to: receive, as a result of the third query, a particular second uniform resource identifier indicating a particular location of an Internet radio station seeded based on the second audio track, as disclosed by Mok.
The motivation for doing so would have been because seeded stations can provide music that suits a listener’s tastes and preferences. Mok at para. 0034.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as claim 5 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium and is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1, Applicant alleges Kuper in view of Martin fails to disclose (1) “receiving … metadata for a plurality of audio tracks comprising a first media item and a second media item, the metadata comprising first metadata of the first media item and second metadata of the second media item, wherein the metadata excludes (i) data indicating at least one source of the first media item and (ii) data indicating at least one source of the second media item.” (emphasis in original) (Remarks at 2-3), (2) “receive, as a result of the first query, a first uniform resource identifier indicating a particular location of a first audio track corresponding to the first media item at one or more servers of the first streaming audio service,” and “determine, as a result of the second query, that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service.” Remarks at 4. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to limitation (1), Applicant argues Kuper cannot disclose the limitation because Kuper “teaches that when a first user shares a file, the file recommendation is stored with the first identification at block 506”. Remarks at 3-4. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s interpretation of the limitation is narrower than what is required. The limitation recites the metadata “excludes data indicating at least one source” of each of the first media item and the second media item. The limitation only requires that the metadata excludes one source and not all possible sources of each of the first media item and the second media item. Furthermore, the limitation recites the metadata is received by the “cloud-based computing system,” which is not a particular user of the system. Kuper discloses the system comprises an “intermediary”, which is a network based file sharing service system (i.e., cloud based computing system). Kuper at Fig. 4; para. 0070. The “intermediary” receives the recommendation of a first user for a song or album and upon receiving the recommendation, detects the service used by the first user in order to allow encoding of a service identification code (i.e., source) with the recommendation. Kuper at para. 0073. As explained, the “intermediary” (i.e., cloud based computing system) receives a recommendation (i.e., metadata) and must determine what service the first user uses in order to add a service identification code (i.e., source) to the recommendation. This would only be necessary because the recommendation does not include any source information. Accordingly, Kuper discloses limitation (1).
In regards to limitations (2) and (3), Applicant argues a lack of a subscription “cannot suggest availability of a first media item and unavailability of a second media item from the same service.” Remarks at 4. Applicant is correct in that a lack of subscription at a first service cannot suggest availability of a first media item and unavailability of a second media item. As set forth in the rejection above, Kuper discloses a search function used by the system to allow tracks from one music service to be played on another music service. Kuper at para. 0047. Kuper describes this functionality for situations where a user does not have a subscription to music service from which a music track is recommended. Kuper also discloses performing a search on a third service to identify and provide less expensive access to a song. Kuper at para. 0026. Martin discloses the ability to analyze a playlist of songs and locate the songs across a plurality of different sources and/or services (i.e., streaming audio services). Martin at paras. 0017, 0021. Martin also discloses situations where a user does not have the subscription or type of access to a particular service and situations where a user subscribed service simply does not have a music track (i.e., determine … that the second media item is unavailable from the first streaming audio service). Martin at para. 0030. In these cases, Martin discloses searching other services to which a user has access to find the identical song or a compatible song. Martin at para. 0056. Accordingly, Martin discloses searching a first user subscribed service (i.e., first streaming audio service) for a song on a playlist, determining that the song (i.e., second media item) is unavailable from the first user subscribed service (i.e., unavailable from the first streaming audio service), and searching any other service to which the user has access (i.e., querying … a second streaming audio service) to identify the song (i.e., second media item) or something adequately compatible, allowing the user to listen to the song. For at least these reasons, Kuper in view of Martin discloses limitations (2) and (3).
Applicant does not present additional arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts the cited prior art discloses all the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons explained above. In regards to the remaining claims, Applicant refers to the arguments presented in regards to claim 1, which are addressed above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Rejection of claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, refer to the arguments presented in regards to claims 1 and 9, which are addressed above. Consequently, they remain rejected for at least the same reasons explained above.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Farrelly (US Patent Pub 2009/0077052) discloses a system and method for a media recommendation service.
Plastina et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0048712) discloses a system and method for a media player service library with media playing using a playlist.
Qureshey et al. (US Patent Pub 2002/0002039) discloses a system and method for a network enabled audio device for playing music.
Sass et al. (US Patent 6,769,028) discloses a system and method for sharing streaming media links.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 A playlist is shared from a first user to a second user. The playlist includes a list of music including track titles and artists but does not include source information, since the second user must perform a search based on track title information (i.e., receiving … metadata for a plurality of audio tracks … the metadata comprising first metadata … and second metadata …, wherein the metadata excludes …).
2 Network (i.e., remote) database is searched for an audio track matching the track title (i.e., metadata) for a service of the second user (i.e., first streaming audio service).
3 As a result of the search, an identification code is returned. An identification code is a URL (i.e., URI) that points to the file (i.e., indicating a particular location of a first audio track …).
4 The ID/URL (i.e., URI) is queued for consumption using the URLs (i.e., add … to a playback queue … configured to playback audio tracks …).
5 The shared playlist contains a plurality of tracks. In this case, a second track is searched for (i.e., audio track matching second metadata).
6 The query determines that he user does not have the ability to use the service where the shared track is located because they do not have a subscription/account or because access is expensive.
7 Upon determining the user can’t play the song cause the user doesn’t have a subscription for its primary service (i.e., unavailable), database and services available to the second user are searched to determine a service the user has access to that has the song available.
8 As a result of the search, an identification code is returned. An identification code is a URL (i.e., URI) that points to the file (i.e., indicating a particular location of a second audio track …).
9 The ID/URL (i.e., URI) is queued for consumption using the URLs (i.e., add … to a playback queue …).
10 The playback devices can play the playlist (i.e., playback queue).
11 User is able to access media on services where the user has access (i.e., a particular account/subscription).
12 Martin discloses determining that a media item on a playlist is not accessible based on user subscriptions/access or that the song is unavailable at the first service searched (i.e., unavailable to the particular account of the first streaming audio service).
13 The system, when searching, may determine the exact song from the exact album may not exist and thus has to pick a different track, which may be the same song, but a different recording or from a different album (i.e., not available within a library …).
14 The same song but maybe a different recording or from a different album is determined.
15 The URL is returned and can be added to a queue for playing the song.
16 The data store (i.e., database) is remote from the user.
17 Music services and their libraries are searched for media items using media item metadata (i.e., data representing the first query …).
18 A playlist can be shared, which includes metadata containing track title and album title and artist.
19 A “zone” having one or more players is interpreted as a “synchrony group”.
20 The players in a single zone or multiple zones can play media in synchronization (i.e., playback .. in synchrony).