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
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on10/25/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a “system” is being recited; however, it appears that the apparatus would reasonable be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software per se. The claim discloses a system comprising a stateless position coordinator for receiving, computing and sending back requests from a device. Applicant’s specification provides no explicit definition of the “stateless position coordinator” being a hardware device, and it appears that such would reasonable be interpreted the “stateless position coordinator” as software which causes the functions to occur.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 of US Pat. No. 12382140 (‘140). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
‘140
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite the limitation "media content times". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The examiner is interpretating the limitation as “media content items” for examination purpose.
Claims 7, 14 and 21 recite the limitation "until it ends". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, because the limitation “it” is not referenced.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 8-9, 13-14, 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Shenoy et al. (US 2024/0346063 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Shenoy discloses a method for performing stateless playback, comprising the steps of: receiving a request from a media playback device, the request requesting a playback position associated with a collaborative media consumption session (fig.9, [0052]; a device requests a playback position from a collaborative playlist environment);
upon receiving the request, computing a playback position for the collaborative media consumption session (fig.9, [0053]; the playback position is computed); and
sending the playback position to the media playback device (fig.9, [0054]; the computed playback position is sent back to the requesting device).
As to claim 2, Shenoy discloses wherein the playback position corresponds to a point in a sequence of one or more media content items where playback is currently paused or ongoing ([0057]; the playback position can be paused).
As to claim 6, Shenoy discloses detecting a change in a list of media content items associated with the collaborative media playback consumption session, thereby detecting a modified list of media content items; and computing an updated playback position based on the updated list of media content times (fig.9, fig.12A, [0057]; a modify in the playlist is detected and update made to the playback position is computed and sent to collaborating devices).
As to claim 7, Shenoy discloses playing the media content item currently playing until it ends, when the media content item currently playing has been removed from the list of media content items or moved within the list of media content items (fig.18, [0077]; the removed content is continually played by a gap-filling logic).
INDEPENDENT claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
INDEPENDENT claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5,10-12 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179