Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are pending, with claims 2, 9, and 16 being independent. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
In view of the amendment and request for request for reconsideration, previous rejection of claims 2-21 set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 10,222,939 B1), in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 7,325,043 B1) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-9, 11-15, and 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims have grammatical and/or typographical errors such as repetitive “the,” shows below
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, wherein authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device to manipulate the playlist is received after transmitting the message to the server system.
All dependent claims are objected to for incorporating the same informalities of their respective base claims. Claim 4 is an example and there are other claims that have similar issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 9229938 issued to Jaini et al. filed on 2012-08-31, hereinafter, “Jaini.”
With respect to claim 2, Jaini, in a “System And Method For Suggesting Media Content Contributions For A Collaborative Playlist,” teaches
a method of controlling manipulation of a playlist
(in col. 2, ln 1-9, Jaini teaches “generating a playlist of media content in response to a request)
including a queue of media items to be played
(in col 8, ln 37-45, and in FIG. 5, Jaini teaches the “system 500 can include a queuing component 502 that can be configured to receive a playlist 504 of publicly accessible media content 506 hosted by at least one content site or service 508. The playlist 504 received by the queuing component 502 can be received by way of a user device 510 and can be collaboratively created by a playlist group 512),
the method being performed by a first electronic device associated with a first user account, the first electronic device having one or more processors and a memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors
(See Jaini , Fig. 5-6; Fig 5, 512 are user devices; the owner of playlist and the invitees use the shared playlist ),
the method comprising:
displaying the playlist in a user interface of the first electronic device,
(in col. 2, ln 1-9, Jaini teaches “generating a playlist of media content” and “displaying uploaded media content”)
wherein the playlist is generated based on a set of media preferences associated with the first electronic device;
(In col 6, ln 20-39, Jaini teaches that an “uploaded media content of the at least one invitee can be contextually suggested to the at least one invitee,” wherein the invitee is also a user. The “contextually suggested” media content is equated with the “preference” of media item as claimed)
receiving, from a server system, authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with a second electronic device associated with a second user account that is different from the first user account, wherein the authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist is sent to the first and second electronic devices, wherein the authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device is received in accordance with a determination that the first and the second electronic devices are located within a defined geographic proximity;
(in col. 3, ln 35-50, Jaini teaches that a “user (e.g., the playlist owner) can set privacy settings for the collaborative playlist as well as permissions for the one or more group contributors (e.g., the one or more invitees);” the “permission” is equated with the claimed authorization.) As to the “defined geographic proximity,” Jaini, in col 6, ln 40-67, teaches a “location component 202 can associate one or more videos uploaded by the second user based on a common geographic location and/or timestamp between the one or more videos uploaded by the second user and the video(s) already uploaded to the playlist.” The “common geographic location” is equated with the “proximity” of users/devices as claimed;
See also Fig. 8, 806 “allow the at least one invitee to add the uploaded media content wherein the content (to be uploaded) is determined based on metadata.. ;”
after receiving authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device
(Jaini teaches, in col 6, ln 40-67, “a first user can create a playlist associated with an event on a media content server. The playlist can include videos taken by other users who were present at the event. The first user can share a playlist associated with this event and/or invite the other users (e.g., via an invitation) to contribute to the playlist. As such, a second user (e.g., a particular user from the other users) can receive the invitation from the first user.”
receiving, from the server system, an updated order of media items based on a request from the second electronic device to update an order of media items in the playlist;
(in col 6, ln 40-67, Jaini teaches, “a first user can create a playlist associated with an event on a media content server… The first user can share a playlist associated with this event and/or invite the other users (e.g., via an invitation) to contribute to the playlist…. The suggestion component 108 can display the one or more videos uploaded by the second user (e.g., relevant videos) to the second user as the second user is watching the video(s) already included in the playlist. For example, a thumbnail of the one or more videos uploaded by the second user can be presented to the second user while the second user is viewing a video from the playlist. As such, the second user can add the one or more videos uploaded by the second user to the playlist (e.g., by pushing a button associated with the thumbnail of the one or more videos);” The “adding” of one or more videos is equated with the “updated order” as claimed);
and
displaying the updated order of media items in the playlist.
(in col. 2, ln 1-9, Jaini teaches “generating a playlist of media content” and “displaying uploaded media content”)
With respect to claim 4, the teachings cited above are applied, and with respect to the step determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, wherein authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device to manipulate the playlist is received after transmitting the message to the server system, Jaini teaches a number of communication protocols in col 14, ln 61 – 67,
“It is to be noted that aspects or features of this disclosure can be exploited in substantially any wireless telecommunication or radio technology, e.g., Wi-Fi; Bluetooth; Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX); Enhanced General Packet Radio Service (Enhanced GPRS); Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Long Term Evolution (LTE); Third Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2) Ultra Mobile Broadband (UMB); 3GPP Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS); High Speed Packet Access (HSPA); High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA); High Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA); GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution) Radio Access Network (GERAN); UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN); LTE Advanced (LTE-A); etc. Additionally, some or all of the aspects described herein can be exploited in legacy telecommunication technologies, e.g., GSM. In addition, mobile as well non-mobile networks (e.g., the Internet, data service network such as internet protocol television (IPTV), etc.) can exploit aspects or features described herein.”
With respect to claim 5 (, wherein the communications protocol is Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC), see Jaini, col 14, ln 61 – 67, “It is to be noted that aspects or features of this disclosure can be exploited in substantially any wireless telecommunication or radio technology, e.g., Wi-Fi; Bluetooth…”
With respect to claim 6, (the method of claim 2, further comprising: accessing information indicating a geographic location of a third electronic device; and in response to a determination that the third electronic device has entered [[a]] the defined geographic proximity with the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system to authorize the third electronic device to manipulate the playlist), Jaini does not limit the number of devices that can participate and collaborate in Fig. 5 and 6.
With respect to claim 7 (the method comprising, streaming updated orders of media items in the playlist in response to respective requests from the first electronic device, the second electronic device, and the third electronic device to manipulate the playlist) and
With respect to claim 8 (the method further comprising: sending, to the server system, a request to manipulate the playlist; and receiving, from the server system, a second updated order of media items based on the request from the first electronic device to manipulate playlist), Jaini, in Fig. 5 and 6, shows multiple users (512) collaborating to upload/add/update media items, and Jaini refers to conventional services for streaming. See Jaini, col.3, lines 17-20, “Many conventional service providers allow users to upload media content (e.g., audio and/or video content) to a server (e.g., a media content server). The media content can then be delivered (e.g., streamed) to other users.”
Claims 9, and 11-15 are essentially the same as claims 2, 4-8 except that they are directed to a system with one or more electronic devices and rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 2, and 4-8 hereinabove.
Claims 16 and 18-21 are essentially the same as claims 2, 4-8 except that they are directed to a computer program product that communicate with one or more electronic devices and rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 2, and 4-8 hereinabove.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights