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
Office Action is in response to the instant Application 18/635,595 filed on 4/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 7/22/2024, 8/9/2024 and 6/27/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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)(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) 1-6, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (US 11,902,607).
As per claim 1, Roy discloses a computing system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Roy, Col. 45 Lines 34-50 recites “The computer-readable media 1210 can include, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, solid-state storage, magnetic disk storage, optical storage, and/or other computer-readable media technology. Further, in some examples, the user device 1202 can access external storage, such as RAID storage systems, storage arrays, network attached storage, storage area networks, cloud storage, or any other medium that can be used to store information and that can be accessed by the processor(s) 1208 directly or through another computing device or network. Accordingly, the computer-readable media 1210 can be computer storage media able to store instructions, components or components that can be executed by the processor(s) 1208. Further, when mentioned, non-transitory computer-readable media exclude media such as energy, carrier signals, electromagnetic waves, and signals per se.”):
receive, from a main account associated with a media playback system, an invite request to invite an additional account to access a set of one or more resources of the media playback system (Roy, Col. 12 Lines 18-28 recites “According to some examples, the method begins by receiving a request to initiate the collaborative playlist from a first user account at block 302. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may receive a request to initiate the collaborative playlist from a first user account. In some examples, the first user account can be logged into their account at the multi-media platform 102 through their first user device and can interact with the instance of the multi-media application executing on the first user device to initiate and send the request to initiate the collaborative playlist.”);
based on the invite request, generate, via a first service, a first association, wherein the first association comprises an association between the additional account and one or more of: (i) the main account, or (ii) the set of one or more resources (Roy, Col. 12 Lines 53-67 recites “According to some examples, the method includes configuring an access policy for the collaborative playlist at block 308. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may configure an access policy for the collaborative playlist. The access policy defines a plurality of user accounts, including the second user account, that are permitted to access the collaborative playlist. In some examples, the access policy can also define the role of the first user account. The access policy defines access, editing, or control rights to at least one second user. The at least one second user may be defined by a user account ID, or may be defined by a class of user accounts (e.g., new user accounts, all user accounts, user accounts with a link, user accounts within a geographic radius of a particular device or location, etc.).”);
after generating the first association, receive, from a user device associated with the additional account, an access request to access at least one functionality for a particular resource in the media playback system (Roy, Col. 13 Lines 29-34 recites “According to some examples, the method includes receiving a request to access the collaborative playlist by a second user account that has followed the link at block 312. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may receive a request to access the collaborative playlist by a second user account that has followed the link.”);
based on a determination that the first association does not comprise an association between the additional account and the particular resource, query a second service to obtain data corresponding to a second association, wherein the second association comprises an association between one or more of: (i) the main account and the particular resource, or (ii) the set of one or more resources and the particular resource; and based on both the first association and the second association, allow the additional account to access the at least one functionality for the particular resource (Roy, Col. 13 Lines 42-67 recites “According to some examples, the method includes determining whether the second user account can be granted access to the collaborative playlist based on the access policy at decision block 316. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may determine whether the second user account can be granted access to the collaborative playlist based on the access policy.
(71) According to some examples, the method includes granting the second user account access to the collaborative playlist under the access policy when conditions surrounding the request for access meet requirements specified in the access policy at block 318. The second user account is granted access by issuing the access token to the second user account that specifies the rights permitted to the second user account defined in the access policy. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may grant the second user account access to the collaborative playlist by issuing the access token to the second user account that specifies the editing or control rights permitted to the second user account defined in the access policy. The access token specifies that the access token holder can access the collaborative playlist, the type of editing privileges granted to the access token holder, and/or the control rights to be granted to the holder of the access token. In some examples, the access token includes a time to live (TTL) that defines an expiration for the access token.”).
As per claim 2, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein the set of one or more resources comprises one or more of: (i) one or more playback devices of the media playback system; (ii) one or more partitions of the media playback system; or (iii) one or more locations of the media playback system (Roy, Col. 18 Lines 59 – Col. 19. Line 2 recites “According to some examples, the method includes receiving a configuration from the first user account that is an owner of the collaborative playlist to designate a first user device as the playback device for the collaborative playlist at block 502. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 may receive a configuration from the first user account that is an owner of the collaborative playlist to designate a first user device as the playback device for the collaborative playlist. The first user device is linked to an audio system including a loudspeaker, such as a car speaker, stereo receiver, or Bluetooth speaker.”).
As per claim 3, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions such that the computing system is configured to: after generating the first association, receive, from the user device registered with the additional account, an access request to access at least one functionality for the set of one or more resources (Roy, Col. 13 Lines 29-34 recites “According to some examples, the method includes receiving a request to access the collaborative playlist by a second user account that has followed the link at block 312. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may receive a request to access the collaborative playlist by a second user account that has followed the link.”);
and based on a determination that the first association comprises an association between the additional account and the set of one or more resources, allow the additional account to access to the at least one functionality for the set of one or more resources (Roy, Col. 13 Lines 42-67 recites “According to some examples, the method includes determining whether the second user account can be granted access to the collaborative playlist based on the access policy at decision block 316. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may determine whether the second user account can be granted access to the collaborative playlist based on the access policy.
(71) According to some examples, the method includes granting the second user account access to the collaborative playlist under the access policy when conditions surrounding the request for access meet requirements specified in the access policy at block 318. The second user account is granted access by issuing the access token to the second user account that specifies the rights permitted to the second user account defined in the access policy. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may grant the second user account access to the collaborative playlist by issuing the access token to the second user account that specifies the editing or control rights permitted to the second user account defined in the access policy. The access token specifies that the access token holder can access the collaborative playlist, the type of editing privileges granted to the access token holder, and/or the control rights to be granted to the holder of the access token. In some examples, the access token includes a time to live (TTL) that defines an expiration for the access token.”).
As per claim 4, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein: receiving the invite request comprises receiving one or more messages corresponding to the invite request; and the one or more messages collectively comprise an identifier corresponding to the additional account and an identifier corresponding to the set of one or more resources (Roy, Col. 12 Lines 53-67 recites “According to some examples, the method includes configuring an access policy for the collaborative playlist at block 308. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may configure an access policy for the collaborative playlist. The access policy defines a plurality of user accounts, including the second user account, that are permitted to access the collaborative playlist. In some examples, the access policy can also define the role of the first user account. The access policy defines access, editing, or control rights to at least one second user. The at least one second user may be defined by a user account ID, or may be defined by a class of user accounts (e.g., new user accounts, all user accounts, user accounts with a link, user accounts within a geographic radius of a particular device or location, etc.).”).
As per claim 5, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 4, Roy further discloses wherein: the one or more messages further collectively comprise an indication of a role for the additional account in the media playback system; and allowing the additional account to access the at least one functionality for the particular resource comprises allowing the additional account to access the at least one functionality for the particular resource based on the role (Roy, Col. 12 Lines 53-67 recites “According to some examples, the method includes configuring an access policy for the collaborative playlist at block 308. For example, the multi-media platform 102 illustrated in FIG. 1 may configure an access policy for the collaborative playlist. The access policy defines a plurality of user accounts, including the second user account, that are permitted to access the collaborative playlist. In some examples, the access policy can also define the role of the first user account. The access policy defines access, editing, or control rights to at least one second user. The at least one second user may be defined by a user account ID, or may be defined by a class of user accounts (e.g., new user accounts, all user accounts, user accounts with a link, user accounts within a geographic radius of a particular device or location, etc.).”).
As per claim 6, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein: the computing system is configured to communicate with one or more of the first service and the second service via at least one application programming interface (API) (Roy, Col. 22 Lines 58-63 recites “) In some examples, the multi-media platform 102 utilizes an API to browse a content catalog of the third-party media service based on the metadata identifying the second content item received in the request (at block 702). The metadata includes a second content item identifier, a second artist name, and/or a second title.”).
As per claim 11, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein: the set of one or more resources comprises one or more playback devices distributed across a group of one or more partitions of the media playback system; and each partition in the group of one or more partitions comprises at least one playback device connected to a local area network (LAN) different from a LAN to which other playback devices in other partitions are connected (Roy, Co. 34 Lines 25-33 recites “The network 1120 can be one or more networks including a local area network, or wide area network, and can be a public network or a private network. The network 1120 can utilize any type of communication technology including wired or wireless communications, tunnels, virtual private networks (“VPNs”), etc. The network may be an ad hoc network that is instantiated between two or more devices as needed or can be an infrastructure network that is persistently available to devices. The network 1120 can connect any of the devices and platforms illustrated in FIG. 11.”).
As per claim 12, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, Roy further discloses wherein the data corresponding to the second association comprises topology data corresponding to a topology of the media playback system, and wherein the topology data comprises the association between the set of one or more resources and the particular resource (Roy, Col. Lines 9-18 recites “First user 116 can be any entity that has administrative rights to a collaborative playlist. Administrative rights provide a user account with rights to change an access policy, configure rules for the behavior of the collaborative playlist, can moderate actions by other user accounts interacting with the collaborative playlist (e.g., prevent user accounts from skipping or adding new content items, etc.). In some examples, the first user can be an artist, label, publisher, or user subscribed to a media service provided by multi-media platform 102.”).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory readable medium and a method associated with the system of claim 1. Claims 13 and 20 are of similar scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 2 respectively. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 3 respectively. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 3, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 4 respectively. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 5 respectively. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 6 respectively. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US 11,902,607) in view of Kruse et al. (US 2016/0041882).
As per claim 7, Roy discloses the computing system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions such that the computing system is configured to: receive, from the user device registered with the additional account, a second access request to access the at least one functionality for the particular resource in the media playback system; and based on a determination that a topology of the media playback system has changed, deny the additional account access to the at least one functionality for the particular resource.
However, in an analogous art Kruse teaches wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions such that the computing system is configured to: receive, from the user device registered with the additional account, a second access request to access the at least one functionality for the particular resource in the media playback system; and based on a determination that a topology of the media playback system has changed, deny the additional account access to the at least one functionality for the particular resource (Kruse, Paragraph 0080 recites “The present disclosure also includes a system including at least one processor configured to execute computer executable instructions; at least one computer readable storage media storing the computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, provide a storage system configured to: receive a first access request for target data, the target data stored by a storage system, and the first access request including a request identifier; store the request identifier in persistent storage as a first stored identifier; grant the first access request for the target data; after a failure, receive a resume request for the target data, the resume request including the request identifier and including a resume request flag; determine whether the target data has changed since the failure by comparing the request identifier in the resume request to one or more identifiers in persistent storage; when the target data has not changed since the failure, grant the resume request for the target data; and when the target data has changed since the failure, deny the resume request”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kruse’s safe data access following storage failure with Roy’s
Multi-participant Media Control And Playback because it offers the advantage to protect data from being accessed in the event of changes in a system.
As per claim 8, Roy in combination with Kruse teaches the computing system of claim 7, Kruse further teaches wherein determining that the topology of the media playback system has changed comprises determining that the second association no longer comprises an association between the set of one or more resources and the particular resource (Kruse, Paragraph 0080 recites “The present disclosure also includes a system including at least one processor configured to execute computer executable instructions; at least one computer readable storage media storing the computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, provide a storage system configured to: receive a first access request for target data, the target data stored by a storage system, and the first access request including a request identifier; store the request identifier in persistent storage as a first stored identifier; grant the first access request for the target data; after a failure, receive a resume request for the target data, the resume request including the request identifier and including a resume request flag; determine whether the target data has changed since the failure by comparing the request identifier in the resume request to one or more identifiers in persistent storage; when the target data has not changed since the failure, grant the resume request for the target data; and when the target data has changed since the failure, deny the resume request”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kruse’s safe data access following storage failure with Roy’s Multi-participant Media Control And Playback because it offers the advantage to protect data from being accessed in the event of changes in a system.
As per claim 9, Roy in combination with Kruse teaches the computing system of claim 7, Kruse further teaches wherein determining that the topology of the media playback system has changed comprises receiving a topology update indication corresponding to a change in the topology of the media playback system (Kruse, Paragraph 0080 recites “The present disclosure also includes a system including at least one processor configured to execute computer executable instructions; at least one computer readable storage media storing the computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, provide a storage system configured to: receive a first access request for target data, the target data stored by a storage system, and the first access request including a request identifier; store the request identifier in persistent storage as a first stored identifier; grant the first access request for the target data; after a failure, receive a resume request for the target data, the resume request including the request identifier and including a resume request flag; determine whether the target data has changed since the failure by comparing the request identifier in the resume request to one or more identifiers in persistent storage; when the target data has not changed since the failure, grant the resume request for the target data; and when the target data has changed since the failure, deny the resume request”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kruse’s safe data access following storage failure with Roy’s Multi-participant Media Control And Playback because it offers the advantage to protect data from being accessed in the event of changes in a system.
As per claim 10, Roy in combination with Kruse teaches the computing system of claim 9, Kruse further teaches wherein receiving the topology update indication corresponding to a change in the topology of the media playback system comprises receiving an indication that the particular resource has been disconnected from the set of one or more resources (Kruse, Paragraph 0080 recites “The present disclosure also includes a system including at least one processor configured to execute computer executable instructions; at least one computer readable storage media storing the computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, provide a storage system configured to: receive a first access request for target data, the target data stored by a storage system, and the first access request including a request identifier; store the request identifier in persistent storage as a first stored identifier; grant the first access request for the target data; after a failure, receive a resume request for the target data, the resume request including the request identifier and including a resume request flag; determine whether the target data has changed since the failure by comparing the request identifier in the resume request to one or more identifiers in persistent storage; when the target data has not changed since the failure, grant the resume request for the target data; and when the target data has changed since the failure, deny the resume request”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kruse’s safe data access following storage failure with Roy’s Multi-participant Media Control And Playback because it offers the advantage to protect data from being accessed in the event of changes in a system.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a similar non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system of claim 7 respectively. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439