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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 10/10/2025.
Claim 15, 19-23, 27-31 and 35-43 are pending. Claim 15, 23,30- 31 and 38 are amended. Claim 15, 19-23, 27-31 and 35-43 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1-14, cancelled.
Claim 15, 23, 31, 39-40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe, Shamal et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060265421), hereafter, referred to as “Ranasinghe”, in view of Platt, John et al (PGPUB Document No. 20030221541), hereafter, referred to as “Platt”, in view of Jeyachandran, Suresh et al (US Patent No. 10373611), hereafter, referred to as “Jeyachandran”, in further view of Lourdeaux; Michael Joseph (PGPUB Document No. 20060278064), hereafter, referred to as “Lourdeaux”
Claim 15 (Currently Amended), Ranasinghe teaches A client device for generating a non-explicit playlist, comprising: an output display (Ranasinghe, para 0100 discloses a playlist creation on client device “the playlist creation application may be incorporated into a media management program. Further, the playlist creation application may be client-based.”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain non-explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”); one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions for causing the one or more processors to (Ranasinghe, para 0131 discloses a playlist creation on computing device with processors “that the user can generate a playlist using the user's local processor (personal computer or portable device, etc.) without being connected to or relying on a server”): display, on the output display, a playlist of media content items including one or more explicit media content items (Ranasinghe, element 1505 of fig. 15 and para 0141 disclose output display of a playlist “the user clicks on a button 360 to initiate and generate a playlist 1505 as depicted in FIG. 15.”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
display, on the output display, an option to create a non-explicit playlist including one or more non-explicit content items based on the playlist of media content items(Ranasinghe, para 0106 discloses selecting a media file as a seed for playlist generation “The playlist creation process may be initiated by any number of events such as a use selecting at least one media file identifier and then selecting a user interface indicia representing a desire to create a playlist”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
receive an input instructing to create the non-explicit playlist(Ranasinghe, para 0140 discloses system is receiving user input/instruction to create a playlist “the user can then click a button to initiate the playlist generation. In one embodiment, the playlist is generated in part from all the media file identifiers located in the pane dedicated for collecting media file”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
But Ranasinghe don’t explicitly teach in response to receiving the input, identify a seed media content item; identify a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores, wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item;
modify the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit, wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items;
generate the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified; and provide the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Platt teaches in response to receiving the input, identify a seed media content item; identify a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores(Platt, para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item “The seed item(s) 810 can be accepted by the seed item input subsystem 822 ……. which can compare descriptive metadata associated with the seed item(s) 810 to descriptive metadata associated with the candidate media item to determine a degree of similarity that can be employed by the playlist generating subsystem 828 to determine whether the candidate media item should be included in the playlist 850”);
modify the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit; generate the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified (Platt, further in para 0040 discloses generating a playlist without undesirable or explicitly contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of evaluating media contents for a playlist based on their similarity score of Platt into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce effort and time required by a user to generate a playlist by automatically generating a playlist based on adding contents which meets similarity characteristics of the seed media/item (Platt, para 0009).
But Ranasinghe and Platt don’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items; and provide the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Jeyachandran teaches wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; and provide the non-explicit playlist(Jeyachandran, claim 10 discloses adding only non-explicit content items in the playlist (which not a clean version of the explicit content) “wherein the modifying of the operation of the media player based on the reaction and the genre is further based on rating information associated with a second song having non-explicit lyrics and includes adding the second song to the playlist of media content played by the media player”; where Platt in para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item therefore the playlist can contain both explicit or non-explicit contents if see media is not indicated as undesirable, see para 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of adding only non-explicit type of contents in playlist of Jeyachandran into playlist generation of Ranasinghe and Platt to produce an expected result of providing playlists not containing any version of explicit items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the playlist generation by considering users’ acoustic ambience or physical environment (Jeyachandran, col 3:36-61).
But Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran don’t explicitly teach wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items;
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Lourdeaux teaches wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items(Lourdeaux, para 0024 discloses content having parental warning (PG rated) is getting identified among other warning labels for distribution “administrative client 224 may be used to determine how content files from a content provider are distributed to listener user client 204. In other examples, content ….. may have multiple versions each identified by a designation, such as "clean," "explicit," with rating (e.g., G, PG, R, X, and others." A selected version may be distributed based on preference (e.g., clean, explicit, G, PG, R, X, and the like) of the content provider or listener client” );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of delivering media contents based on their rating of Lourdeaux into playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran to produce an expected result of providing playlists contents based users’ preferred ratings. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to cater appropriate media contents to end users based on contents ratings to comply with user preference(Lourdeaux, para 0025).
Claim 16-18, cancelled.
Claim 39 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains at least one non-explicit media content item from the playlist of media content items (Ranasinghe, para 0194 discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
Claim 40 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 and Jeyachandran further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist does not contain any clean versions of explicit media content items from the playlist of media content items (Jeyachandran, claim 10 discloses adding only non-explicit content items in the playlist (which is not a clean version of the explicit content) “wherein the modifying of the operation of the media player based on the reaction and the genre is further based on rating information associated with a second song having non-explicit lyrics and includes adding the second song to the playlist of media content played by the media player”),
Claim 23 (Currently Amended), Ranasinghe teaches A method for generating a non-explicit playlist, comprising: displaying, on an output display (Ranasinghe, para 0100 discloses a playlist creation on client device “the playlist creation application may be incorporated into a media management program. Further, the playlist creation application may be client-based.”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain non-explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”), a playlist of media content items including one or more explicit media content items (Ranasinghe, element 1505 of fig. 15 and para 0141 disclose output display of a playlist “the user clicks on a button 360 to initiate and generate a playlist 1505 as depicted in FIG. 15.”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
displaying, on the output display, an option to create a non-explicit playlist listing including one or more media non-explicit content items based on the playlist of media content items (Ranasinghe, para 0106 discloses selecting a media file as a seed for playlist generation “The playlist creation process may be initiated by any number of events such as a use selecting at least one media file identifier and then selecting a user interface indicia representing a desire to create a playlist”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
receiving an input instructing to create the non-explicit playlist(Ranasinghe, para 0140 discloses system is receiving user input/instruction to create a playlist “the user can then click a button to initiate the playlist generation. In one embodiment, the playlist is generated in part from all the media file identifiers located in the pane dedicated for collecting media file”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
But Ranasinghe does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the input, identifying a seed media content item; identifying a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores, wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit, wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items; generating the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified; and providing the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Platt teaches in response to receiving the input, identifying a seed media content item; identifying a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores (Platt, para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item “The seed item(s) 810 can be accepted by the seed item input subsystem 822 ……. which can compare descriptive metadata associated with the seed item(s) 810 to descriptive metadata associated with the candidate media item to determine a degree of similarity that can be employed by the playlist generating subsystem 828 to determine whether the candidate media item should be included in the playlist 850”); modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit; generating the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified (Platt, further in para 0040 discloses generating a playlist without undesirable or explicitly contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of evaluating media contents for a playlist based on their similarity score of Platt into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce effort and time required by a user to generate a playlist by automatically generating a playlist based on adding contents which meets similarity characteristics of the seed media/item (Platt, para 0009).
But Ranasinghe and Platt don’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items; and providing the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Jeyachandran teaches wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; and providing the non-explicit playlist (Jeyachandran, claim 10 discloses adding only non-explicit content items in the playlist (which not a clean version of the explicit content) “wherein the modifying of the operation of the media player based on the reaction and the genre is further based on rating information associated with a second song having non-explicit lyrics and includes adding the second song to the playlist of media content played by the media player”; where Platt in para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item therefore the playlist can contain both explicit or non-explicit contents if see media is not indicated as undesirable, see para 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of adding only non-explicit type of contents in playlist of Jeyachandran into playlist generation of Ranasinghe and Platt to produce an expected result of providing playlists not containing any version of explicit items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the playlist generation by considering users’ acoustic ambience or physical environment (Jeyachandran, col 3:36-61).
But Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran don’t explicitly teach wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items;
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Lourdeaux teaches wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items (Lourdeaux, para 0024 discloses content having parental warning (PG rated) is getting identified among other warning labels for distribution “administrative client 224 may be used to determine how content files from a content provider are distributed to listener user client 204. In other examples, content ….. may have multiple versions each identified by a designation, such as "clean," "explicit," with rating (e.g., G, PG, R, X, and others." A selected version may be distributed based on preference (e.g., clean, explicit, G, PG, R, X, and the like) of the content provider or listener client” );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of delivering media contents based on their rating of Lourdeaux into playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran to produce an expected result of providing playlists contents based users’ preferred ratings. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to cater appropriate media contents to end users based on contents ratings to comply with user preference (Lourdeaux, para 0025).
Claim 24-26, cancelled.
Claim 42 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 23 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains at least one non-explicit media content item from the playlist of media content items (Ranasinghe, para 0194 discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
Claim 31 (Currently Amended), Ranasinghe teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions for causing one or more processors to perform (Ranasinghe, para 0131 discloses a playlist creation on computing device with processors to execute instructions “that the user can generate a playlist using the user's local processor (personal computer or portable device, etc.) without being connected to or relying on a server”): displaying, on an output display, a playlist of media content items including one or more explicit media content items (Ranasinghe, element 1505 of fig. 15 and para 0141 disclose output display of a playlist “the user clicks on a button 360 to initiate and generate a playlist 1505 as depicted in FIG. 15.”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
displaying, on the output display, an option to create a non-explicit playlist listing including one or more media non-explicit content items based on the playlist of media content items (Ranasinghe, para 0106 discloses selecting a media file as a seed for playlist generation “The playlist creation process may be initiated by any number of events such as a use selecting at least one media file identifier and then selecting a user interface indicia representing a desire to create a playlist”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can contain explicit contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”); receiving an input instructing to create the non-explicit playlist(Ranasinghe, para 0140 discloses system is receiving user input/instruction to create a playlist “the user can then click a button to initiate the playlist generation. In one embodiment, the playlist is generated in part from all the media file identifiers located in the pane dedicated for collecting media file”; para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
But Ranasinghe don’t explicitly teach in response to receiving the input, identifying a seed media content item; identifying a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores, wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit, wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items; generating the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified; and providing the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Platt teaches in response to receiving the input, identifying a seed media content item; identifying a plurality of further media content items that are each related to the seed media content item based on respective similarity scores (Platt, para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item “The seed item(s) 810 can be accepted by the seed item input subsystem 822 ……. which can compare descriptive metadata associated with the seed item(s) 810 to descriptive metadata associated with the candidate media item to determine a degree of similarity that can be employed by the playlist generating subsystem 828 to determine whether the candidate media item should be included in the playlist 850”); modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be explicit; generating the non-explicit playlist based on the plurality of further media content items as modified (Platt, further in para 0040 discloses generating a playlist without undesirable or explicitly contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of evaluating media contents for a playlist based on their similarity score of Platt into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce effort and time required by a user to generate a playlist by automatically generating a playlist based on adding contents which meets similarity characteristics of the seed media/item (Platt, para 0009).
But Ranasinghe and Platt don’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items; and providing the non-explicit playlist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Jeyachandran teaches wherein the plurality of further media content items includes one or more explicit content items and one or more non-explicit content items and does not include a clean version of the seed media content item; and providing the non-explicit playlist (Jeyachandran, claim 10 discloses adding only non-explicit content items in the playlist (which not a clean version of the explicit content) “wherein the modifying of the operation of the media player based on the reaction and the genre is further based on rating information associated with a second song having non-explicit lyrics and includes adding the second song to the playlist of media content played by the media player”; where Platt in para 0045 discloses based on seed media input candidate for a playlist is determined based of their similarity score/degree to the seed item therefore the playlist can contain both explicit or non-explicit contents if see media is not indicated as undesirable, see para 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of adding only non-explicit type of contents in playlist of Jeyachandran into playlist generation of Ranasinghe and Platt to produce an expected result of providing playlists not containing any version of explicit items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the playlist generation by considering users’ acoustic ambience or physical environment (Jeyachandran, col 3:36-61).
But Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran don’t explicitly teach wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Lourdeaux teaches wherein determining one or more media content items to be explicit comprises identifying a parental warning label associated with the one or more media content items (Lourdeaux, para 0024 discloses content having parental warning (PG rated) is getting identified among other warning labels for distribution “administrative client 224 may be used to determine how content files from a content provider are distributed to listener user client 204. In other examples, content ….. may have multiple versions each identified by a designation, such as "clean," "explicit," with rating (e.g., G, PG, R, X, and others." A selected version may be distributed based on preference (e.g., clean, explicit, G, PG, R, X, and the like) of the content provider or listener client” );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of delivering media contents based on their rating of Lourdeaux into playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran to produce an expected result of providing playlists contents based users’ preferred ratings. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to cater appropriate media contents to end users based on contents ratings to comply with user preference (Lourdeaux, para 0025).
Claim 32-34, cancelled.
Claim 43 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 31 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains at least one non-explicit media content item from the playlist of media content items(Ranasinghe, para 0194 discloses that based on the user filter selection the playlist can be created to contain non-explicit items “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
Claim 19-20, 27-28 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe, Shamal et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060265421), hereafter, referred to as “Ranasinghe”, in view of Platt, John et al (PGPUB Document No. 20030221541), hereafter, referred to as “Platt”, in view of Jeyachandran, Suresh et al (US Patent No. 10373611), hereafter, referred to as “Jeyachandran”, in view of Lourdeaux; Michael Joseph (PGPUB Document No. 20060278064), hereafter, referred to as “Lourdeaux”, in further view of Singhal, Ayush et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160034512), hereafter, referred to as “Singhal”.
Claim 19 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 and Ranasinghe further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions for causing the one or more processors to: wherein the one or more explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing explicit content and the one or more non-explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content (Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the filter selection, identifying explicit, non-explicit contents and further filtering out explicit media contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
Platt further teaches and wherein modifying the plurality of further media content items comprises filtering out the one or more explicit media content items(Platt, in para 0040 discloses modifying/re-generating a playlist by removing explicitly/undesirable contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”)).
But Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux don’t explicitly teach create, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items,
However, in the same field of endeavor of vector space generation of media item features Singhal teaches create, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items(Singhal, para 0069 disclose creating of vector for seed item features (input item’s context or features) and for any other related items’ (explicit/non-explicit) features and, then comparing vector similarities “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vector space generation feature of media contents of Singhal into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists of related media items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve media content extraction process by adding additional metadata to audio, video or multi-media contents (Singhal, para 0026).
Claim 20 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran, Lourdeaux and Singhal teach all the limitations of claim 19 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein: the seed media content item is in a playlist of a user (Ranasinghe, Fig. 10 discloses seed media (element 600) can be in the playlist element 310 & 1005);
Singhal further teaches and the vector space represents one or more playlists created by one or more other users (Singhal, para 0069 and fig. 6 disclose creating of vector space by comparing contents similarity “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”; Singhal’s disclosed vector space of contents’ similarity can be applied to contents in media playlist disclosed by Ranasinghe).
Claim 27 ((Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 23 and Ranasinghe further wherein the one or more explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing explicit content and the one or more non-explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content (Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the filter selection, identifying explicit, non-explicit contents and further filtering out explicit media contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
Platt further teaches and wherein modifying the plurality of further media content items comprises filtering out the one or more explicit media content items (Platt, in para 0040 discloses modifying/re-generating a playlist by removing explicitly/undesirable contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”)).
But Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran don’t explicitly teach creating, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items,
However, in the same field of endeavor of vector space generation of media item features Singhal teaches creating, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items (Singhal, para 0069 disclose creating of vector for seed item features (input item’s context or features) and for any other related items’ (explicit/non-explicit) features and, then comparing vector similarities “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vector space generation feature of media contents of Singhal into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists of related media items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve media content extraction process by adding additional metadata to audio, video or multi-media contents (Singhal, para 0026).
Claim 28 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran, Lourdeaux and Singhal teach all the limitations of claim 27 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein: the seed media content item is in a playlist of a user (Ranasinghe, Fig. 10 discloses seed media (element 600) can be in the playlist element 310 & 1005);
Singhal further teaches and the vector space represents one or more playlists created by one or more other users (Singhal, para 0069 and fig. 6 disclose creating of vector space by comparing contents similarity “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”; Singhal’s disclosed vector space of contents’ similarity can be applied to contents in media playlist disclosed by Ranasinghe).
Claim 35 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 31 and Ranasinghe further teaches further having stored thereon a sequence of instructions for causing the one or more processors to perform: wherein the one or more explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing explicit content and the one or more non-explicit media content items are media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content(Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the filter selection, identifying explicit, non-explicit contents and further filtering out explicit media contents “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”);
Platt further teaches and wherein modifying the plurality of further media content items comprises filtering out the one or more explicit media content items (Platt, in para 0040 discloses modifying/re-generating a playlist by removing explicitly/undesirable contents “the remove button 455 can be clicked causing the playlist to be regenerated whilst avoiding tracks similar to the track removed. The track removed is also a seed item but is utilized to identify undesirable characteristics”)).
But Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux don’t explicitly teach creating, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items,
However, in the same field of endeavor of vector space generation of media item features Singhal teaches creating, based on the seed media content item, a vector space representing one or more explicit media content items and one or more non-explicit media content items(Singhal, para 0069 disclose creating of vector for seed item features (input item’s context or features) and for any other related items’ (explicit/non-explicit) features and, then comparing vector similarities “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vector space generation feature of media contents of Singhal into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists of related media items. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve media content extraction process by adding additional metadata to audio, video or multi-media contents (Singhal, para 0026).
Claim 36 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran, Lourdeaux and Singhal teach all the limitations of claim 35 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein: the seed media content item is in a playlist of a user (Ranasinghe, Fig. 10 discloses seed media (element 600) can be in the playlist element 310 & 1005);
Singhal further teaches and the vector space represents one or more playlists created by one or more other users (Singhal, para 0069 and fig. 6 disclose creating of vector space by comparing contents similarity “may compare the context of the input item to respective contexts of a plurality of other items to determine respective levels of similarity between the input item and the plurality of other items (604). For instance, computer 500 may generate a vector that represents the semantic makeup of each context, and determine the cosine similarity between vectors”; Singhal’s disclosed vector space of contents’ similarity can be applied to contents in media playlist disclosed by Ranasinghe).
Claim 21, 29 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe, Shamal et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060265421), hereafter, referred to as “Ranasinghe”, in view of Platt, John et al (PGPUB Document No. 20030221541), hereafter, referred to as “Platt”, in view of Jeyachandran, Suresh et al (US Patent No. 10373611), hereafter, referred to as “Jeyachandran”, in view of Lourdeaux; Michael Joseph (PGPUB Document No. 20060278064), hereafter, referred to as “Lourdeaux”, in further view of Wang, Tao et al (PGPUB Document No. 20180150897), hereafter, referred to as “Wang”.
Claim 21 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt and Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 but don’t explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium further having stored thereon one or more further sequences of instructions for causing the one or more processors to: sort a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user of the client device to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items; and play the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Wang teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further having stored thereon one or more further sequences of instructions for causing the one or more processors to: sort a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user of the client device to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items (Wang, para 0028 discloses generating a sorted/ordered list of candidate media based on user’s affinity towards them “ranking module 142 can generate a ranked or ordered list of candidate media items 148 to recommend to the user based on the affinity scores in user profile 133 and the media items in recommendable media items database 134. The candidate list of media items may include only the media items for which the user already has an affinity (e.g., by artist, genre, actors, directors, etc.”; para 0028 discloses that affinity is specific to user profile and para 0015 further discloses displaying media contents on user device “Media application 112 can present graphical user interfaces (GUI) on a display of user device 110 for presenting media items (e.g., media item content, video, music, etc.) and/or representations of media items (e.g., metadata, images, descriptions, etc.) received by user device 110 from server device 130”);
and play the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity (Wang, para 0028 further discloses present/play candidate list “Candidate media items list 148 can be generated as needed (e.g., when every media item in the list has already been considered or presented to the user)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the affinity score calculation feature of Wang into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve users’ satisfaction by determining satisfaction scores of similar contents and presenting those contents ranked according to their satisfaction scores (Wang, para 0004).
Claim 29 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 23 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: sorting a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items; and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity.
However in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Wang teaches further comprising: sorting a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items; and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity (Wang, para 0028 discloses generating a sorted/ordered list of candidate media based on user’s affinity towards them “ranking module 142 can generate a ranked or ordered list of candidate media items 148 to recommend to the user based on the affinity scores in user profile 133 and the media items in recommendable media items database 134. The candidate list of media items may include only the media items for which the user already has an affinity (e.g., by artist, genre, actors, directors, etc.”; para 0028 discloses that affinity is specific to user profile and para 0015 further discloses displaying media contents on user device “Media application 112 can present graphical user interfaces (GUI) on a display of user device 110 for presenting media items (e.g., media item content, video, music, etc.) and/or representations of media items (e.g., metadata, images, descriptions, etc.) received by user device 110 from server device 130”);
and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity (Wang, para 0028 further discloses present/play candidate list “Candidate media items list 148 can be generated as needed (e.g., when every media item in the list has already been considered or presented to the user)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the affinity score calculation feature of Wang into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve users’ satisfaction by determining satisfaction scores of similar contents and presenting those contents ranked according to their satisfaction scores (Wang, para 0004).
Claim 37 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 31 but don’t explicitly teach further having stored thereon a further sequence of instructions for causing the one or more processors to perform: sorting a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items; and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity.
However in the same field of endeavor of playlist generation Wang teaches further having stored thereon a further sequence of instructions for causing the one or more processors to perform: sorting a plurality of media content items in the non-explicit playlist based on an affinity of a user to an artist associated with each of the plurality of media content items; and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity (Wang, para 0028 discloses generating a sorted/ordered list of candidate media based on user’s affinity towards them “ranking module 142 can generate a ranked or ordered list of candidate media items 148 to recommend to the user based on the affinity scores in user profile 133 and the media items in recommendable media items database 134. The candidate list of media items may include only the media items for which the user already has an affinity (e.g., by artist, genre, actors, directors, etc.”; para 0028 discloses that affinity is specific to user profile and para 0015 further discloses displaying media contents on user device “Media application 112 can present graphical user interfaces (GUI) on a display of user device 110 for presenting media items (e.g., media item content, video, music, etc.) and/or representations of media items (e.g., metadata, images, descriptions, etc.) received by user device 110 from server device 130”);
and playing the plurality of media content items in an order based on the affinity(Wang, para 0028 further discloses present/play candidate list “Candidate media items list 148 can be generated as needed (e.g., when every media item in the list has already been considered or presented to the user)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the affinity score calculation feature of Wang into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists aligned to user’s taste. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve users’ satisfaction by determining satisfaction scores of similar contents and presenting those contents ranked according to their satisfaction scores (Wang, para 0004).
Claim 22, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe, Shamal et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060265421), hereafter, referred to as “Ranasinghe”, in view of Platt, John et al (PGPUB Document No. 20030221541), hereafter, referred to as “Platt”, in view of Jeyachandran, Suresh et al (US Patent No. 10373611), hereafter, referred to as “Jeyachandran”, in view of Lourdeaux, Michael Joseph (PGPUB Document No. 20060278064), hereafter, referred to as “Lourdeaux”, in further view of Kidron, Adam (PGPUB Document No. 20120221559), hereafter, referred to as “Kidron”.
Claim 22 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains one or more non-explicit media content items, the one or more non-explicit media content items being media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content(Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection, identifying non-explicit contents and adding them to the playlist “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
But Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux don’t explicitly teach and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item.
However, in the same field of endeavor of audio content similarity analysis Kidron teaches and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item(Kidron, para 0141 discloses generation of other similar contents for the recommended list where list has contents other than the seed item “When a content item seed is provided to the discover stream component, the recommendation engine may take the provided content item seed and generate other content items that are related to the seed…. The selected item may stay stationary while related albums may continuously stream from the left to the right.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of playlist generation without seed media of Kidron into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists based on seed media. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the provide media services users by automatically detecting and initiating acquisition (licensing) of rights of user’s interest (Kidron, para 018) .
Claim 30 (Currently Amended), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 23 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains one or more non-explicit media content items, the one or more non-explicit media content items being media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content (Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection, identifying non-explicit contents and adding them to the playlist “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
But Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux don’t explicitly teach and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item.
However, in the same field of endeavor of audio content similarity analysis Kidron teaches and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item(Kidron, para 0141 discloses generation of other similar contents for the recommended list where list has contents other than the seed item “When a content item seed is provided to the discover stream component, the recommendation engine may take the provided content item seed and generate other content items that are related to the seed…. The selected item may stay stationary while related albums may continuously stream from the left to the right.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of playlist generation without seed media of Kidron into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists based on seed media. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the provide media services users by automatically detecting and initiating acquisition (licensing) of rights of user’s interest (Kidron, para 018) .
Claim 38 (Currently Amended), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 31 and Ranasinghe further teaches wherein the non-explicit playlist contains one or more non-explicit media content items, the one or more non-explicit media content items being media content items that have been identified as containing non-explicit content (Ranasinghe, para 0194 further discloses that based on the user filter selection, identifying non-explicit contents and adding them to the playlist “the filters only apply or are available to the user if a specific type of media file identifier is selected…. the user can pre-set, via the user interface, the system to automatically filter out any media file identifiers containing explicit lyrics”),
But Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux don’t explicitly teach and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item.
However, in the same field of endeavor of audio content similarity analysis Kidron teaches and none of the one or more non-explicit media content items is the seed media content item(Kidron, para 0141 discloses generation of other similar contents for the recommended list where list has contents other than the seed item “When a content item seed is provided to the discover stream component, the recommendation engine may take the provided content item seed and generate other content items that are related to the seed…. The selected item may stay stationary while related albums may continuously stream from the left to the right.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of playlist generation without seed media of Kidron into media playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists based on seed media. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the provide media services users by automatically detecting and initiating acquisition (licensing) of rights of user’s interest (Kidron, para 018) .
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe, Shamal et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060265421), hereafter, referred to as “Ranasinghe”, in view of Platt, John et al (PGPUB Document No. 20030221541), hereafter, referred to as “Platt”, in view of Jeyachandran, Suresh et al (US Patent No. 10373611), hereafter, referred to as “Jeyachandran”, in view of Lourdeaux, Michael Joseph (PGPUB Document No. 20060278064), hereafter, referred to as “Lourdeaux”, in further view of Hurst-Hiller, Oliver et al (US Patent No. 7293017), hereafter, referred to as “Hurst-Hiller”
Claim 41 (Previously Presented), Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux teach all the limitations of claim 15 but don’t explicitly teach wherein modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be more than 25% explicit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of undesired content removal Hurst-Hiller teaches wherein modifying the plurality of further media content items by removing therefrom one or more media content items determined to be more than 25% explicit(Hurst-Hiller, col 8:66~ col 9:1-4 discloses removing media content if it contains certain percentage of explicit or undesirable content and which can similarly be applied for items having 25% explicit content “if secondary content filter 220 determines that more than 70% of presentation data regarding a particular electronic document are undesirable, then it may filter out that particular electronic document and the associated presentation data from search result 216”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of filtering contents having certain percentage of undesired content of Hurst-Hiller into playlist generation of Ranasinghe, Platt, Jeyachandran and Lourdeaux to produce an expected result of providing playlists not having any explicit contents. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the undesirable content detection accuracy by looping back the undesirable contents for detection(Hurst-Hiller, col 10:66~ col 11:1-5).
Response to Arguments
I. Non-statutory double patenting rejection
As requested by the applicant (06/30/2023), non-statutory double patenting rejection has been held in abeyance until the claims of the present application are allowed.
II. 35 U.S.C §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but are
moot because the independent claim 15, 23 and 31 have been amended with newly added features which applicant’s arguments are directed towards. Since claims have been amended with new features, a new ground of rejection is presented.
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 ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The examiner can normally be reached M~F: 9:30 am~6:30 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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/ABDULLAH A DAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164