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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1, 4, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zadesky teaches a media playback system comprising:
a first playback device (100, Fig. 1B) with a first energy storage (battery 110) having a maximum storage capacity; and
one or more computer-readable media (memory 114, ¶[28] “The memory 114 can store electronic data that can be used by the electronic device 100. More specifically, in a non-limiting example, memory 114 for electronic device 100 may store electrical data or content relating to the charging of battery 110, as discussed herein. The memory 114 can be configured as any type of memory”) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (112, ¶[27] “The processing device 112 can control some or all of the operations of the electronic device 100. The processing device 112 can communicate, either directly or indirectly, with substantially all of the components of the electronic device 100”), cause the media playback system to perform operations comprising:
setting a target charge level for the first energy storage to a first maximum charge threshold (¶[57] “As a result of determining battery 110 includes an initial charge value (CV.sub.0) less than the threshold charge value (CV.sub.MAX), charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110 over a period of time, such that battery 110 may eventually include a charge value equal to the threshold charge value”),
wherein the first maximum charge threshold is less than the maximum storage capacity (¶[58] “It is understood, that the threshold charge value may include any predetermined charge value for battery 110 of electronic device 100. More specifically, the threshold charge value may include a predetermined charge value for battery 110 that is less than the maximum charge value (CV.sub.MAX), as shown in FIG. 4”),
identifying a first event associated with a first user (¶[47-48] “The anticipated events of electronic device 100 detected during the monitoring process in operation 306 may include a predetermined operation of electronic device 100, and/or a reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100. For example, a predetermined operation of electronic device 100 may be a scheduled alarm set on electronic device 100”),
after identifying the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to a second maximum charge threshold (¶[51] “In operation 308, battery 110 of electronic device 100 may be recharged in response to detecting one of an anticipated event and/or an unanticipated event … That is, and as discussed herein, the recharging of battery 110 may begin a predetermined time before the detected, anticipated event is expected to occur”),
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on a duration of the first event (¶[49] “That is, the reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100 may be learned by charging system 126 when a user regularly couples electronic device 100 to the charging device 200 at a first time, and uncouples the electronic device 100 from the charging device 200 at a second time”, the battery is fully charged because the event indicates the electronic device will be uncoupled), and
receiving power from a first power source (charger 206) to charge the first energy storage to the second maximum charge threshold (¶[52] “When an anticipated event is detected or predicted in operation 306, the recharging of battery 110 in operation 308 may include charging battery 110 to the threshold charge value (e.g., 100% charge) prior to the occurrence of the anticipated event”), and
after the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to the first maximum charge threshold (¶[81] “However, if battery 110 remains in electronic communication with charging device 200 for a predetermined time, charging system 126 may again discontinue the charge to battery 110 and may allow the charge value of battery 110 to begin to deplete”, see Fig. 7 where after an event that charge level is maintained at a threshold below max).
Regarding Claim 4, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky further teaches wherein the second maximum charge threshold is greater than the first maximum charge threshold (¶[52] “When an anticipated event is detected or predicted in operation 306, the recharging of battery 110 in operation 308 may include charging battery 110 to the threshold charge value (e.g., 100% charge) prior to the occurrence of the anticipated event” and ¶[58] “As a result, charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110 to eventually include a charge value equal to the threshold charge value (e.g., 90%)”, see also Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Zadesky teaches a method, performed by a media playback system comprising a first playback device (100) with a first energy storage (110) having a maximum storage capacity, the method comprising:
setting a target charge level for the first energy storage to a first maximum charge threshold (¶[57] “As a result of determining battery 110 includes an initial charge value (CV.sub.0) less than the threshold charge value (CV.sub.MAX), charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110 over a period of time, such that battery 110 may eventually include a charge value equal to the threshold charge value”),
wherein the first maximum charge threshold is less than the maximum storage capacity (¶[58] “It is understood, that the threshold charge value may include any predetermined charge value for battery 110 of electronic device 100. More specifically, the threshold charge value may include a predetermined charge value for battery 110 that is less than the maximum charge value (CV.sub.MAX), as shown in FIG. 4”),
identifying a first event associated with a first user (¶[47-48] “The anticipated events of electronic device 100 detected during the monitoring process in operation 306 may include a predetermined operation of electronic device 100, and/or a reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100. For example, a predetermined operation of electronic device 100 may be a scheduled alarm set on electronic device 100”),
after identifying the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to a second maximum charge threshold (¶[51] “In operation 308, battery 110 of electronic device 100 may be recharged in response to detecting one of an anticipated event and/or an unanticipated event … That is, and as discussed herein, the recharging of battery 110 may begin a predetermined time before the detected, anticipated event is expected to occur”),
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on a duration of the first event (¶[49] “That is, the reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100 may be learned by charging system 126 when a user regularly couples electronic device 100 to the charging device 200 at a first time, and uncouples the electronic device 100 from the charging device 200 at a second time”, the battery is fully charged because the event indicates the electronic device will be uncoupled), and
receiving power from a first power source to charge the first energy storage to the second maximum charge threshold (¶[52] “When an anticipated event is detected or predicted in operation 306, the recharging of battery 110 in operation 308 may include charging battery 110 to the threshold charge value (e.g., 100% charge) prior to the occurrence of the anticipated event”), and
after the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to the first maximum charge threshold (¶[81] “However, if battery 110 remains in electronic communication with charging device 200 for a predetermined time, charging system 126 may again discontinue the charge to battery 110 and may allow the charge value of battery 110 to begin to deplete”, see Fig. 7 where after an event that charge level is maintained at a threshold below max).
Regarding Claim 20, Zadesky teaches one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (memory 114, ¶[28] “The memory 114 can store electronic data that can be used by the electronic device 100. More specifically, in a non-limiting example, memory 114 for electronic device 100 may store electrical data or content relating to the charging of battery 110, as discussed herein. The memory 114 can be configured as any type of memory”) that, when executed by one or more processors (112, ¶[27] “The processing device 112 can control some or all of the operations of the electronic device 100. The processing device 112 can communicate, either directly or indirectly, with substantially all of the components of the electronic device 100”) of a media playback system comprising a first playback device (100) with a first energy storage (110) having a maximum storage capacity, cause the media playback system to perform operations comprising:
setting a target charge level for the first energy storage a first maximum charge threshold (¶[57] “As a result of determining battery 110 includes an initial charge value (CV.sub.0) less than the threshold charge value (CV.sub.MAX), charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, charging system 126 may begin to charge battery 110 over a period of time, such that battery 110 may eventually include a charge value equal to the threshold charge value”),
wherein the first maximum charge threshold is less than the maximum storage capacity (¶[58] “It is understood, that the threshold charge value may include any predetermined charge value for battery 110 of electronic device 100. More specifically, the threshold charge value may include a predetermined charge value for battery 110 that is less than the maximum charge value (CV.sub.MAX), as shown in FIG. 4”),
identifying a first event associated with a first user (¶[47-48] “The anticipated events of electronic device 100 detected during the monitoring process in operation 306 may include a predetermined operation of electronic device 100, and/or a reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100. For example, a predetermined operation of electronic device 100 may be a scheduled alarm set on electronic device 100”),
after identifying the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to a second maximum charge threshold (¶[51] “In operation 308, battery 110 of electronic device 100 may be recharged in response to detecting one of an anticipated event and/or an unanticipated event … That is, and as discussed herein, the recharging of battery 110 may begin a predetermined time before the detected, anticipated event is expected to occur”),
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on a duration of the first event (¶[49] “That is, the reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100 may be learned by charging system 126 when a user regularly couples electronic device 100 to the charging device 200 at a first time, and uncouples the electronic device 100 from the charging device 200 at a second time”, the battery is fully charged because the event indicates the electronic device will be uncoupled), and
receiving power from a first power source to charge the first energy storage to the second maximum charge threshold (¶[52] “When an anticipated event is detected or predicted in operation 306, the recharging of battery 110 in operation 308 may include charging battery 110 to the threshold charge value (e.g., 100% charge) prior to the occurrence of the anticipated event”), and
after the first event, adjusting the target charge level for the first energy storage to the first maximum charge threshold (¶[81] “However, if battery 110 remains in electronic communication with charging device 200 for a predetermined time, charging system 126 may again discontinue the charge to battery 110 and may allow the charge value of battery 110 to begin to deplete”, see Fig. 7 where after an event that charge level is maintained at a threshold below max).
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(s) 2-3, 5, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of Sethi et al. (US 20190348850 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords.
Sethi teaches wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords (¶[25] “the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include a user calendar application in which a user of the user device 300 provides user scheduling information that is indicative of a future use of the user device 300. … the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include any subsystem including any information that may be indicative of a user of the user device 300/battery subsystem 312, including email applications (e.g., in which plane flight confirmation are received, meetings are scheduled, work periods are discussed, etc.), airline applications (e.g., in which plane flight details are created and/or verified), messaging applications (e.g., in which plane flights are discussed, meetings are discussed, work periods are discussed, etc.), and/or any other user device subsystem”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords in order to determine the time and duration of the event without requiring the user to explicitly schedule the event, thereby improving user convenience.
Regarding Claim 3, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time.
Sethi teaches wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time (¶[18] “For example, the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include a user calendar application in which a user of the user device 300 provides user scheduling information that is indicative of a future use of the user device 300 (e.g., meetings, travel details such as plane flights, blocks of time dedicated to work, etc.)”, the term ‘block’ implies a fixed start and end time.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time in order to ensure the device has sufficient charge to be used for the entire duration of the event.
Regarding Claim 5, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events.
Sethi teaches assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events (¶[42] “the charging schedule that provides that desired second charge/discharge pattern may be determined based on user scheduling information (e.g., a user calendar) that is indicative of that desired use of the device”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events in order to charge the device that is intended to be used during the scheduled event.
Regarding Claim 12, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords.
Sethi teaches wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords (¶[25] “the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include a user calendar application in which a user of the user device 300 provides user scheduling information that is indicative of a future use of the user device 300. … the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include any subsystem including any information that may be indicative of a user of the user device 300/battery subsystem 312, including email applications (e.g., in which plane flight confirmation are received, meetings are scheduled, work periods are discussed, etc.), airline applications (e.g., in which plane flight details are created and/or verified), messaging applications (e.g., in which plane flights are discussed, meetings are discussed, work periods are discussed, etc.), and/or any other user device subsystem”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: searching a calendar associated with the first user for one or more keywords in order to determine the time and duration of the event without requiring the user to explicitly schedule the event, thereby improving user convenience.
Regarding Claim 13, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time.
Sethi teaches wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time (¶[18] “For example, the user scheduling subsystem 316 may include a user calendar application in which a user of the user device 300 provides user scheduling information that is indicative of a future use of the user device 300 (e.g., meetings, travel details such as plane flights, blocks of time dedicated to work, etc.)”, the term ‘block’ implies a fixed start and end time.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide wherein identifying the first event associated with the first user comprises: receiving, from the first user, an indication of the first event, the indication of the first event including a start time and an end time in order to ensure the device has sufficient charge to be used for the entire duration of the event.
Regarding Claim 14, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach wherein the second maximum charge threshold is less than the first maximum charge threshold.
Sethi teaches wherein the second maximum charge threshold is less than the first maximum charge threshold (¶[28] “For example, the first charge/discharge pattern discussed in the example provided above with reference to block 404 includes repeated charging of the battery subsystem 312 from 11:00 pm to 5:30 am, and at block 408 the battery charging determination engine 304 in the user device 202/300 (and/or the battery charging determination system 206) may determine a charging schedule that lowers the charging duration in the first charge/discharge pattern (e.g., 6.5 hours) while providing a discharge pattern that satisfies the needs of the user”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide wherein the second maximum charge threshold is less than the first maximum charge threshold in order to improve the lifespan of the battery as suggested by Sethi (see ¶[28] “one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure will recognize may provide a second charge/discharge pattern that extends the life of the battery subsystem 312 (e.g., due to its lower charging duration)”).
Regarding Claim 15, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events.
Sethi teaches assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events (¶[42] “the charging schedule that provides that desired second charge/discharge pattern may be determined based on user scheduling information (e.g., a user calendar) that is indicative of that desired use of the device”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Sethi to provide assigning a first calendar to the first playback device, the first calendar comprising one or more events in order to charge the device that is intended to be used during the scheduled event.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of Wellman et al. (US 20150186105 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event.
Wellman teaches assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event (¶[23] “FIG. 6 is a nonlimiting representation of a screen shot of a "play list" screen that can be used to add, delete, and play audio files. Audio files in the play list can be included in schedules created with the schedule screen of FIG. 5”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Wellman to provide assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event in order to improve user convenience by being able to select the list in advance of the event.
Regarding Claim 16, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event.
Wellman teaches assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event (¶[23] “FIG. 6 is a nonlimiting representation of a screen shot of a "play list" screen that can be used to add, delete, and play audio files. Audio files in the play list can be included in schedules created with the schedule screen of FIG. 5”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Wellman to provide assigning one or more playlists to the first playback device based on the first event in order to improve user convenience by being able to select the list in advance of the event.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of Bouz et al. (US 20160364697 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach the operations further comprising: identifying a second event associated with the first user;
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event;
notifying the first user of the conflict between the first event and the second event; and
receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event.
Bouz teaches identifying a second event associated with the first user (202, “In operation 202, manager program 104 receives an invitation for a new event”);
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event (¶[28] “In operation 204, manager program 104 identifies any conflicting schedule entries. As discussed previously, the schedule of the user is stored in calendar database 106 and may include one or more schedule entries … A conflicting schedule entry is a schedule entry that at least partially coincides with the new event”);
and receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event (¶31] “] In some embodiments, manager program 104 determines a priority based on a predetermined value or, in other embodiments, based on user input. For example, a user may specify a priority for a particular event”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Bouz to provide identifying a second event associated with the first user;
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event; and
receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event, in order to prevent conflicts in the user’s schedule. The combination of Zadesky and Bouz does not explicitly teach notifying the first user of the conflict between the first event and the second event; however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to notify the user so that they can resolve the conflicting events.
Regarding Claim 17, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach identifying a second event associated with the first user;
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event;
notifying the first user of the conflict between the first event and the second event; and
receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event.
Bouz teaches identifying a second event associated with the first user (202, “In operation 202, manager program 104 receives an invitation for a new event”);
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event (¶[28] “In operation 204, manager program 104 identifies any conflicting schedule entries. As discussed previously, the schedule of the user is stored in calendar database 106 and may include one or more schedule entries … A conflicting schedule entry is a schedule entry that at least partially coincides with the new event”);
and receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event (¶31] “] In some embodiments, manager program 104 determines a priority based on a predetermined value or, in other embodiments, based on user input. For example, a user may specify a priority for a particular event”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Bouz to provide identifying a second event associated with the first user;
determining that there is a conflict between the first event and the second event; and
receiving, from the first user, a ranking of the first event and the second event, in order to prevent conflicts in the user’s schedule.
The combination of Zadesky and Bouz does not explicitly teach notifying the first user of the conflict between the first event and the second event; however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to notify the user so that they can resolve the conflicting events.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of Blacquiere et al. (US 20090140699 A1) and further in view of Dvortsov et al. (US 20170003931 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach the operations further comprising:
determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event; and
after determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event,
identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices.
Blacquiere teaches determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event (¶29-30] “When a user selects a multimedia data object for rendering, the microprocessor 101 determines the amount of energy needed to render the selected multimedia data object and the battery energy monitor 108 determines the amount of energy left in the battery … When the amount of energy left in the battery 107 is not enough for rendering the multimedia data object, the multimedia data object is not rendered”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Blacquiere to provide determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event in order to warn the user they will not be able to complete the selected event.
The combination of Zadesky and Blacquiere does not teach identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices.
Dvortsov teaches identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event (¶[19] “In some embodiments, while a first player device is playing songs from an audio collection, one or more second devices can be assessed for potentially taking over the play. This assessment can be made by comparatively evaluating properties of the other devices, such as their power source (e.g., favoring AC, reliable power sources), remaining battery charge”), and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices (¶24] “The transfer may even occur without any required intervention from the user and/or (in some instances) even any indication to the user that the transfer is occurring, has occurred or will occur”; the transfer may or may not be indicated to user).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zadesky and Blacquiere to incorporate the teachings of Dvortsov to provide identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices in order to improve the user experience by automatically transferring the event to a different device.
Regarding Claim 18, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky does not teach determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event; and
after determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event,
identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices.
Blacquiere teaches determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event (¶29-30] “When a user selects a multimedia data object for rendering, the microprocessor 101 determines the amount of energy needed to render the selected multimedia data object and the battery energy monitor 108 determines the amount of energy left in the battery … When the amount of energy left in the battery 107 is not enough for rendering the multimedia data object, the multimedia data object is not rendered”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Blacquiere to provide determining that the maximum storage capacity is insufficient for the first event in order to warn the user they will not be able to complete the selected event.
The combination of Zadesky and Blacquiere does not teach identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices.
Dvortsov teaches identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event (¶[19] “In some embodiments, while a first player device is playing songs from an audio collection, one or more second devices can be assessed for potentially taking over the play. This assessment can be made by comparatively evaluating properties of the other devices, such as their power source (e.g., favoring AC, reliable power sources), remaining battery charge”), and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices (¶24] “The transfer may even occur without any required intervention from the user and/or (in some instances) even any indication to the user that the transfer is occurring, has occurred or will occur”; the transfer may or may not be indicated to user).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zadesky and Blacquiere to incorporate the teachings of Dvortsov to provide identifying one or more second playback devices that each have energy storage with sufficient storage capacity for the first event, and
sending, to the first user, an indication of each of the identified one or more second playback devices in order to improve the user experience by automatically transferring the event to a different device.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of D’Amato (US 20190097886 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky further teaches wherein the first event has an associated start time (¶[47-48] “The anticipated events of electronic device 100 detected during the monitoring process in operation 306 may include a predetermined operation of electronic device 100, and/or a reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100. For example, a predetermined operation of electronic device 100 may be a scheduled alarm set on electronic device 100”),
Zadesky does not explicitly teach wherein the first event has an associated location, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a reoccurring interaction with an electronic device (see ¶[47-48] quoted above) occurs in the same location each time.
Zadesky does not explicitly teach the operations further comprising:
at a predetermined period prior to the start time, disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device and a controller device, and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device.
D’Amato teaches disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device (702) and a controller device (300), and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device (¶[141] “modifying one or more wireless network configuration parameters of one or both of PBDs 702 and 704 involves powering off one or more wireless network interfaces (e.g., Bluetooth™, NFC, etc.) of one or both of PBDs 702 and 704, while leaving at least one wireless network interface active (e.g., WiFi, etc.).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of D’Amato to provide disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device and a controller device, and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device, in order to reduce interference between the playback device and controller device as suggested by D’Amato (see ¶[141]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 11.
Zadesky further teaches wherein the first event has an associated start time (¶[47-48] “The anticipated events of electronic device 100 detected during the monitoring process in operation 306 may include a predetermined operation of electronic device 100, and/or a reoccurring interaction with electronic device 100. For example, a predetermined operation of electronic device 100 may be a scheduled alarm set on electronic device 100”),
Zadesky does not explicitly teach wherein the first event has an associated location, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a reoccurring interaction with an electronic device (see ¶[47-48] quoted above) occurs in the same location each time.
Zadesky does not explicitly teach at a predetermined period prior to the start time, disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device and a controller device, and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device.
D’Amato teaches disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device (702) and a controller device (300), and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device (¶[141] “modifying one or more wireless network configuration parameters of one or both of PBDs 702 and 704 involves powering off one or more wireless network interfaces (e.g., Bluetooth™, NFC, etc.) of one or both of PBDs 702 and 704, while leaving at least one wireless network interface active (e.g., WiFi, etc.).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of D’Amato to provide disabling a WiFi connection between the first playback device and a controller device, and enabling a Bluetooth connection between the first playback device and the controller device, in order to reduce interference between the playback device and controller device as suggested by D’Amato (see ¶[141]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadesky et al. (US 20180097377 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190369711 A1) and further in view of McKay et al. (US 20240095612 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Zadesky teaches the media playback system of claim 1.
Zadesky does not teach wherein the first playback device comprises one or more energy harvesters, the operations further comprising:
retrieving weather information associated with the first event,
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on the retrieved weather information.
Wang teaches wherein the first playback device comprises one or more energy harvesters (¶[24] “power supply 108 can be configured to generate power from a natural source (e.g., solar power using solar cells)”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zadesky to incorporate the teachings of Wang to provide wherein the first playback device comprises one or more energy harvesters in order to provide extra charge to the battery and reduce costs of electric grid power.
The combination of Zadesky and Wang does not explicitly teach retrieving weather information associated with the first event,
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on the retrieved weather information.
McKay teaches retrieving weather information associated with the first event (¶[34] “if it is predicted that there is an upcoming gap in power generation because of the weather then a battery system powered by the renewable installation may be scheduled to ensure it is fully charged ahead of the upcoming gap”),
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on the retrieved weather information (¶[34] “In such systems—for instance, an electric vehicle battery—weather predictions can inform whether the battery should be charged overnight. In particular, in the case of a solar-powered system, the battery may be charged overnight if the following day is predicted to be cloudy and there is a cheaper tariff for charging at night”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zadesky and Wang to incorporate the teachings of McKay to provide retrieving weather information associated with the first event,
wherein the second maximum charge threshold is based on the retrieved weather information in order to ensure the battery is sufficiently charged for the first event if there is no renewable energy available during the event period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is (571)270-0555. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6 PM EST.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights