DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 22, 23, 29, 30, and 36 recite “the group”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and appears as though it should recite “a group”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
4. Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn, IV et al. (US 2014/0331133 A1), hereinafter referred to as Coburn, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2009/0027355 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Coburn discloses a method for controlling media playback, the method comprising (Paragraphs 0027-0032):
receiving into a media-delivery system, over a network from a media-playback device, a media-playback request requesting playback of media content identified by the media-playback request (Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0091 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0093 lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0094: media playback request in network configured media playback system);
and responsive to the media-playback request,
(ii) determining by the media-delivery system, one or more user-interface player features for the media-playback device to support in association with playback of the requested media content (Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0091, Paragraph 0105, Paragraph 0110, Paragraph 0113, and Paragraph 0114: determining policies that control playback and display that affects a playback interface),
and (iii) providing from the media-delivery system to the media-playback device the requested media content and an indication of the determined one or more user-interface player features, to enable the media-playback device to support the one or more indicated user-interface player features in association with playback of the media content (Paragraph 0091, Paragraph 0105, Paragraph 0108, Paragraph 0110, Paragraph 0113, Paragraph 0114, and Paragraph 0125: the determined policies are received with the requested media content of the media playback request and used to modify the playback and playback interface).
While Coburn teaches the above and further teaches applying policies based on a type of media, where the type is a characteristic for the requested media item (Paragraph 0021 and Paragraph 0097), they fail to explicitly show the (i) determining by the media-delivery system a format of the requested media content, (ii) determining by the media-delivery system, based on the determined format of the requested media content, one or more user-interface player features for the media-playback device to support in association with playback of the requested media content, as recited in the claims. Miller teaches media content and user-interface player features similar to that of Coburn. In addition, Miller further teaches
determining a format of a requested media content, and determining, based on the determined format of the requested media content, one or more user-interface player features for a media-playback device to support in association with playback of the requested media content (Paragraph 0012 and Paragraph 0055: determine type of data file configure user interface for proper operation based on the type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Coburn and Miller before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above teachings of Coburn to include the determining a format of a requested media content, and determining, based on the determined format of the requested media content, one or more user-interface player features for a media-playback device to support in association with playback of the requested media content of Miller, in order to obtain responsive to the media-playback request , (i) determining by the media-delivery system a format of the requested media content, (ii) determining by the media-delivery system, based on the determined format of the requested media content, one or more user-interface player features for the media-playback device to support in association with playback of the requested media content, and (iii) providing from the media-delivery system to the media-playback device the requested media content and an indication of the determined one or more user-interface player features, to enable the media-playback device to support the one or more indicated user-interface player features in association with playback of the media content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as alter the functionality based on the type of data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Miller (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-22 and Paragraph 0055 lines 13-15).
In regard to claim 22, Coburn discloses wherein the media content comprises an item selected from various forms, including playlists (Paragraph 0098) and Miller further discloses media content comprises an item selected from various forms including music (e.g. song, album), speech (e.g. audio book, podcast), and video (Abstract lines 1-3, Paragraph 0054 lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0055 lines 4-6). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the media content comprises an item selected from the group consisting of a song, a playlist, an album, a video, a podcast, and an audiobook. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as alter the functionality based on the type of data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Miller (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-22 and Paragraph 0055 lines 13-15).
In regard to claim 23, Coburn discloses wherein the user-interface player features identify at least one playback control selected from the group consisting of a play button, a pause button, a skip button, and a scrub slider (Fig. 5 element 510, Paragraph 0072, and Paragraph 0126).
In regard to claim 24, Coburn discloses wherein the user-interface player features include allowing media shuffling (Paragraph 0126: policy not disabling shuffle would allow media shuffling).
In regard to claim 25, Coburn discloses disabling by the media- delivery system a given user-interface player feature in association with playback of the requested media content, wherein disabling the given user-interface player feature comprises (i) omitting the given user-interface player feature from the indication of the determined one or more user-interface player features or (ii) providing the media-playback device with an indication that the given user- interface player feature is disabled (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0126, Paragraph 0128, Paragraph 0129, and Paragraph 0130: disabling player features by not displaying them or displaying then “grayed out” or displaying them indication that they are disabled) and Miller further discloses based on the determined format of the requested media content, disabling a given user-interface player feature in association with playback of the requested media content (Paragraph 0055: fast forward and rewind buttons not provided with an interface for determined audio book type). Accordingly, the combination further teaches based on the determined format of the requested media content, disabling by the media- delivery system a given user-interface player feature in association with playback of the requested media content, wherein disabling the given user-interface player feature comprises (i) omitting the given user-interface player feature from the indication of the determined one or more user-interface player features or (ii) providing the media-playback device with an indication that the given user- interface player feature is disabled. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as alter the functionality based on the type of data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Miller (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-22 and Paragraph 0055 lines 13-15).
In regard to claim 26, Coburn discloses wherein the given user-interface player function is shuffling (Paragraph 0126 lines 8-11) and Miller further discloses wherein the determined format is audiobook and providing controls not including shuffling of audiobook chapters (Paragraph 0055 lines 11-13). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the determined format is audiobook, and wherein the given user-interface player function is shuffling of audiobook chapters. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as alter the functionality based on the type of data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Miller (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-22 and Paragraph 0055 lines 13-15).
In regard to claim 27, Coburn discloses responsive to the media-playback request, (i) determining by the media-delivery system, based on a format of the requested media content, a user-interface format for use by the media-playback device in association with playback of the requested media content, and (ii) providing from the media-delivery system to the media-playback device an indication of the determined user-interface format (Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0105, Paragraph 0114, and Paragraph 0115: policies based on type of media for formatting how information is displayed in the interface are determined and provided). As, Miller discloses determining the format of requested media content (the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein in its entirety), the combination further teaches responsive to the media-playback request, (i) determining by the media-delivery system, based on the determined format of the requested media content, a user-interface format for use by the media-playback device in association with playback of the requested media content, and (ii) 3providing from the media-delivery system to the media-playback device an indication of the determined user-interface format. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as alter the functionality based on the type of data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Miller (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-22 and Paragraph 0055 lines 13-15).
In regard to claims 28-34, system claims 28-34 correspond generally to method claims 21-27, respectively, and recite similar features in system form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 35-40, medium claims 35-40 correspond generally to method claims 21 and 23-27, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
5. The arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
8. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179