DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 2/23/2026.
Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lang, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0216855 (“Lang”), in view of Moeller, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2008/0002836 (“Moeller”).
With regard to Claim 1, Lang teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor (Fig. 5 and [0044]) such that the system is configured to:
communicate, over a data network, with a media playback system comprising a plurality of playback devices ([0012]-[0013] describes that digital music devices make up a wireless music system controlled via a single device, and may also communicate with a device management engine);
receive, via the data network, an indication of a user request received by a computing device of the media playback system to cause a playback device of the plurality of playback devices of the media playback system to execute a given command ([0014] describes that the management engine connects to a controlling device in response to events such as user interaction with the controlling device to carry out a command);
determine whether the playback device is operating in (i) a first mode in which the playback device is allowed to execute a set of commands for controlling playback of media content, or (ii) a second mode in which the playback device is allowed to execute a first subset of commands from the set of commands but prevented from executing a second subset of commands from the set of commands ([0018] describes that the management engine monitors devices when a lock mode is enabled, where [0030] describes that the management engine lock module limits changes to settings associated with digital devices. [0042] describes that any type of settings and configurations may be locked, meaning the lock mode applies to some commands but not others associated with the locked device); and
after receiving the indication of the user request and based on a determination that the playback device is operating in the second mode instead of the first mode, either: (i) cause the playback device to execute the given command if the given command is in the first subset of commands; or (ii) forgo causing the playback device to execute the given command if the given command is in the second subset of commands ([0043] describes that a user enters a command, such as selecting a settings option from menus on the device. When the device is in the lock mode, a lock message is displayed instead of carrying out the user command).
Lang does not teach wherein the second subset of commands includes at least one grouping command for changing which of the plurality of playback devices of the media playback system are grouped for synchronous playback of media content. Moeller teaches at [0030] a sound system made up of a plurality of modules coupled to computing devices and controlled by a central control unit on a server. [0037] describes that the modules can be a speaker and a controller. [0050] describes that a user generates a request to connect a speaker to the audio system, where the request can include a user-specified zone, to the central controller. [0052] describes that the system receives the request and decides if a user is permitted to choose a zone for the new speaker connection, and denies the zone request if not permitted. Fig. 12C shows that a setting is specified at an interface for whether to operate in a mode where a new connected speaker is permitted to specify a zone, and [0042] additionally describes that the central controller controls the lock status and zone affiliation of a speaker. Examiner notes that one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand that adding a speaker to a zone means adding it to a specified group of speakers, typically operating at a particular location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Moeller with Lang. Moeller provides centralized control over a sound system, in order to ensure that optimal sound is generated for end users. One of skill in the art at the time of invention would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that device connections and grouping are controlled to deliver optimal sound experiences to user, which is particularly useful in a retail environment in helping to sell devices to consumers.
Claim 12 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions which implement the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Lang teaches that while operating in the second mode, editing of device settings of the playback device is limited, the first subset of commands including at least a first command to allow editing of a first device setting, and the second subset of commands further including at least a second command to prevent editing of a second device setting. [0042] describes that any type of settings and configurations may be locked, meaning the lock mode will block some commands as described at [0043] while allowing others.
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions which implement the system of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Lang teaches that while operating in the second mode, the playback device is configured to present a fixed display of given content via a user interface of the playback device. Fig. 4B and [0043] describe that a fixed display of a lock message is displayed to a user when the user issues a command which is not permitted by the lock mode.
With regard to Claim 4, Lang teaches that while operating in the second mode, deletion of content stored at the playback device is prevented, the second subset of commands further including at least one command to prevent deletion of at least some stored content. [0031] describes that the lock mechanism can limit changes including the deletion of files or applications.
With regard to Claim 5, Lang teaches that while operating in the second mode, storage of content at the playback device is prevented, the second subset of commands further including at least one command to prevent storage of at least some content. [0042] describes that certain settings can be locked, including music library management and online updates, thereby preventing users from accessing settings related to storing content.
With regard to Claim 6, Lang teaches that while operating in the second mode, playback of certain types of media content at the playback device is limited, the first subset of commands including at least a first command to allow playback of a first type of media content and the second subset of commands further including at least a second command to prevent playback of a second type of media content. [0031] describes that the lock mode can indicate that particular streaming content can be prevented from being played because it is not age appropriate.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions which implement the system of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Lang teaches that the second type of media content comprises explicit media content. [0031] describes that certain content can be locked and prevented from playing if it is not appropriate for all ages.
With regard to Claim 8, Lang teaches that the given command is received via a user interface of the playback device. [0043] describes that a user selects a locked option from a displayed device menu.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions which implement the system of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 8, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, Lang teaches that the playback device is provided for customer demonstration in a retail environment. [0013] describes controlling devices in a retail environment.
With regard to Claim 10, Lang teaches program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: while the playback device is operating in the second mode, determine that the playback device is to operate in the first mode and not the second mode; and based on determining that the playback device is to operate in the first mode, cause the playback device to transition from operating in the second mode to operating in the first mode. [0043] describes that a retail location can be provided a pass code for deactivating a lock mode.
With regard to Claim 11, Lang teaches program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: determine that the playback device has been purchased for customer use, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine that the playback device is to operate in the first mode and not the second mode comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine that the playback device is to operate in the first mode and not the second mode based on the determination that the playback device has been purchased for customer use. [0031] describes that the locking module can remove or deactivate the locking mechanism when a customer purchases the device.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lang, in view of Moeller, and in view of Damato, U.S. Patent No. 5,606,624 (“Damato”).
With regard to Claim 21, Lang, in view of Damato teaches the first subset of commands includes one or more first commands that would cause adjustment of a given setting to be within a set of allowed values; and the second subset of commands includes one or more second command that would cause adjustment of the given setting to be outside the set of allowed values.
Lang teaches at [0031] that the lock mode can limit changes made to a device. Damato teaches at Col. 4, lines 4-17 that an audio system demonstration that is in a demonstration mode can include the ability for users to control the audio volume, where the volume adjustment is restricted to a specified range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Damato with Lang and Moeller. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that the lock mode includes the ability for retailers to keep device volumes in a range that allows for adequate demonstration, while not allowing volume to be set to levels that may disrupt customers.
With regard to Claim 22, Damato teaches that the given setting is a volume setting for playback of media content; and the set of allowed values is a defined range of volume allowed for playback of media content. Damato teaches at Col. 4, lines 4-17 that an audio system demonstration that is in a demonstration mode can include the ability for users to control the audio volume, where the volume adjustment is restricted to a specified range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Damato with Lang and Damato. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that the lock mode includes the ability for retailers to keep device volumes in a range that allows for adequate demonstration, while not allowing volume to be set to levels that may disrupt customers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Moeller references cures the deficiencies with regard to the previously cited references in teaching or suggesting the elements of the claims added by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights