Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11740855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application recite a broader version generic to the more specific claims of the ‘855 patent particularly when considered in light of Ukkadam as addressed infra. The recitations of the instant amended claims when considered on their face suffice to obviate the double patenting rejections over U.S. Patent No. 9338514, 10001967, 10545721.
The instant double patenting rejections are maintained. Regarding the request in the remarks filed 2/13/26. Particularly, the claimed subject matter is considered to lack sufficient written description as below and as such fails to show possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the filing of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claims 1, 11, 20 recite “a second profile which is used to access the playback device and which is associated with the second user,” and “causing the playback device, which is currently accessed using the second profile, to access the first account of the first user using the first account credentials to stream the second media content from the media streaming service using the first account of the first user.” The first of the discussed limitations introduces a second user profile operable as the means by which a second user may access the recited playback device after previous operation by a first user. This lacks explicit support in the specification which bears little to no description of how a profile operates as an access mechanism for the playback device. Certainly a multi-user scenario is discussed in the context of “accounts” upon a streaming service but an account and a profile are distinct and as claimed an account may comprise a plurality of profiles—"the first user account may be associated with one or more user profiles.” No mention is made of the manner in which a profile governs playback device access. As such the concept is not considered possessed by the original specification. The second of the discussed limitations introduces credentials to the embroilment requiring a particular operational sequencing. A device in the process of accessing media upon a device operative with respect to a first user profile, accesses or retrieves a first user account using first credentials thereof to thereafter determine a second profile associated with a second user and operative to access the playback device with the second profile associated with the second user and thereafter operate the playback device accessed using the second profile to access the first account of the first user using first user credentials to stream additional media. The specification paints the broad strokes: upon a device accessed by a first user to play media; a second user gains access or agency upon the system, whereupon the device operates for streaming of a second media based on a first user and second user; but the specification lacks discussion of the mechanisms of the specific recitations to support the credential access mechanisms recited in the claims. (Please see ¶ 63-69, 76 of the instant specification). Claims 2-10, 11-19 do not remedy and are similarly 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 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. 10/3 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 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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over further Ukkadam: 20110283333 hereinafter Uk in view of Stockwell: 8099334 hereinafter Stock and further in view of Martin: 20050021470 hereinafter Mar.
Regarding claim 1
Uk teaches:
A method comprising: after a playback device is operated by a first user having a first profile, which is used to access the playback device, to stream first media content from a media streaming service on which the first user has a first account that includes first account credentials for accessing the first account of the first user (Uk: ¶ 8, 9, 29, etc.; a playback device such as each set-top cell is registered to a user and comprises a media account bearing authorization credentials, information, etc. enabling a cable provider to stream media thereto),
receiving an indication that a second user desires to stream second media content to the playback device (Uk: ¶ 38-40: playback device determines credentials of devices of local users, devices thereof, which send credentials by which the playback device authorizes one or more users local thereto; a second or subsequent user’s provision of credentials to access the first user device comprises the recited indication);
determining a second profile which is used to access the playback device and which is associated with the second user (Uk: ¶ 8, 9, 33, 42: profile stored on second, subsequent user device comprising profile information, credentials, etc. sent to and authorized by the playback device which stores verified credentials that enable the second user, device thereof to stream or playback media from the playback device); and
after determining, based on the second profile, that the second user is authorized to use the first account of the first user, which is accessed using the first account credentials, to stream media content from the media streaming service (Uk: ¶ 8, 9, 38-40: after confirming authorization of the second user, device thereof, the authorization confirms and confers access privileges to, upon, etc. the second user, device thereof enabling thereto the ability to access and stream media using the first account of the first user),
causing the playback device, which is currently accessed using the second profile, to access the first account of the first user using the first account credentials to stream the second media content from the media streaming service using the first account of the first user (Uk: ¶ 8, 9, 38-40: playback device, having confirmed, authorized, etc. the second user operative within the access privileges of the first user profile streams a media based on second user, authorized device thereof, etc.)
Uk does not explicitly teach a shared home playback system wherein a present second user streams content using a first users streaming service account based on access of the second users media preference and user profile information.
In a related field of endeavor Stock teaches a system and method comprising:
a playback device initially operated by a first user having a first profile to stream first media content from a media streaming service on which the first user has a first account (Stock: Col 4:26-4:28, 4:35-4:39, 4:47-4:50, 10:57-10:60, 11:22-11:40, 12:25-12:40; Fig 10, 12-15: a shared playback system where user accounts of first, second, etc. subscribers access personal playback devices of first, second, etc. users such that a first user access of a second stream, song, etc. occurs subsequent to the first user playing of first stream, song, etc. resulting in additional music, songs, etc.; note also, music offered, retrieved, etc. from a remote server of a network/service; in concert with a determined user identity; the determination of an identity such as from a SIM card or user login as is well-known, and also from a unique device address, etc.) that includes first account credentials for accessing the first account of the first user (Stock: Col 4:26-4:28, 4:35-4:39, 4:47-4:50, 10:57-10:60, 11:22-11:40, 12:25-12:40; Fig 10, 12-15: in Stock “account credentials” are ascertained based on a coded identifier and conflated upon a particular user),
receiving an indication that a second user desires to stream second media content to the playback device (Stock: Col 11:22-11:31; Fig 12: a second user in range of the media player of a first user connects to the media player of the first user, media service determines set of desired media titles from the second user account);
determining a second profile which is used to access the playback device and which is associated with the second user (Stock: Col 11:22-11:31; Fig 11, 12: media service determines a second user account, user media preferences, subsequently downloads, etc. preferred media of the second user); and
after determining, based on the second profile, that the second user is authorized to use the first account of the first user, which is accessed using the first account credentials, to stream media content from the media streaming service (Stock: Col 6:54-6:64, 11:22-11:40; Fig 6, 7, 12; claim 6: media service determines user account and user media preferences; a second user, profile thereof is accepted, authorized, or otherwise granted permission to operate with respect to the profile of the homed user of the local playback device at which point the second user, profile, etc. operates to access the playback device of the homed user at least by download of visitor music thereto, and/or access the server with respect to the homed user),
causing the playback device, which is currently accessed using the second profile, to access the first account of the first user using the first account credentials to stream the second media content from the media streaming service using the first account of the first user. (Stock: Col 11:22-11:31; Fig 11, 12: second user preferred media downloaded and added to a mix of songs delivered by playback device of first user which operates under the first users account, server registration, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the Stock taught home music playback system accessed by dedicated devices of particular users within the a local environment such as a device of a user visiting a home, with the access of streaming services as taught or suggested by Uk either as replacement or in addition to the disclosed set-top boxes of Uk and to perform access of same based on a the Uk authorization method, the Stock authorization method or a combination, permutation, etc. thereof and for at least the purpose of enabling a local music player to incorporate the preferences, agency, etc. of a visiting user; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Uk in view of Stock strongly suggests but does not explicitly teach a system operable to stream a preferred set of second user media content by determining, based on the second profile, second user account data, preferences etc. to thereby cause the playback device to stream the second media content from the media streaming service in concert with the second user account data, preferences, etc. such as by the Uk in view of Stock system, method, etc. using the first account of the first user.
In a related field of endeavor Mar teaches a system and method for controlling streaming of media titles based on user preferences (Mar: Abstract, ¶ 124); wherein a player operates to render audio streams (Mar: ¶ 347) comprising selecting different tracks for streaming based on different preferences for different users (Mar: ¶ 348). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to operate the Uk in view of Stock system by utilizing an internet streaming system, service, etc. responsive to stream media based on particularly preferences of particular users as taught or suggested by Martin such as in concert with the Uk in view of Stock taught first and second user preferences, account data, etc. to thereby stream particular media content, user metadata, etc. such as of a second or additional user for at least the purpose of better incorporating implicit and explicit preferences of a second or additional user; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a second-user media content preference indication and associating the second-user media content preference indication with the second media content (Stock: Fig 12: e.g. receipt of the second user preference metadata and tracks associated therewith); (Mar: ¶ 347, 348: titles streamed in concert with preference metadata). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein associating the second-user media content preference indication with the second media content comprises: communicating the second-user media content preference indication to the streaming media service (Stock: Fig 11, 14: e.g. a second user communicates implicit user preference by voting for or against a track played and/or communicates explicit user preference when a second user buys a track associated with the first user). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein associating the second-user media content preference indication with the second media content comprises: communicating the second-user media content preference indication to the playback device (Stock: Fig 11: system downloads second user metadata and second user track files to first user device). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second-user media content preference indication comprises an explicit preference (Stock: Fig 11, 14: e.g. a second user communicates implicit user preference by voting for or against a track played and/or communicates explicit user preference when a second user buys a track associated with the first user); (Mar: ¶ 262, 265; Fig 31, 32: system provides a user interface for provision of explicit and implicit dislike). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 5, wherein the explicit preference comprises one or more of a thumb up input, like input, thumb down input, or dislike input (Mar: ¶ 262, 265; Fig 31, 32: system provides a user interface for provision of explicit and implicit dislike in the form of a rating). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 5, wherein the explicit preference comprises a rating of the first media content (Mar: ¶ 262, 265; Fig 31, 32: system provides a user interface for provision of explicit and implicit dislike in the form of a rating). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second-user media content preference indication comprises an implicit preference (Stock: Fig 11, 14: e.g. a second user communicates implicit user preference by voting for or against a track played and/or communicates explicit user preference when a second user buys a track associated with the first user); (Mar: ¶ 262, 265; Fig 31, 32: system provides a user interface for provision of explicit and implicit dislike). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 8, wherein the implicit preference comprises a command to cause the playback device to skip from playing the first media content to playing second media content, wherein the second media content is different than the first media content (Mar: ¶ 132: user provides implicit dislike when skipping to a next track). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Uk in view of Stock in view of Mar teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first media content comprises an audio track (Stock: Col 4:26-4:28, 4:35-4:39, 4:47-4:50, 10:57-10:60, 11:22-11:40, 12:25-12:40; Fig 12-15: playback system where user accounts of first, second, etc. subscribers access personal playback devices of first, second, etc. users such that a first user access of a second stream, song, etc. occurs subsequent to the first user playing of first stream, song, etc. resulting in additional music, songs, etc.; note also, music offered, retrieved, etc. from a remote server of a network/service; in concert with a determined user identity; the determination of an identity such as from a SIM card or user login as is well-known, and also from a unique device address, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Uk as modified by Stock, and Mar as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Uk, Stock, and/or Mar to the modified device of Uk, Stock and Mar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20 – the claim recites substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments in concert with claim amendments filed 2/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 over Stockwell in view of Martin in view of Robbin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stockwell in view of Martin in view of Robbin.
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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights