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 (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 08/16/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 05/29/2024. The submission 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 § 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker” while the claim recites "an audio content being output by the second device via the speaker ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 13, 17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iyer et al disclose a method, comprising: providing, by a first device that is outputting audio content via a speaker that is separate from the first device (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; playback devices interpreted as first device can be local speaker or external speaker as in the case of a set top box and a wireless speaker), an invitation to a second device to control the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; playback devices interpreted as first device provide advertisement to remote control device interpreted as second device; advertisement interpreted as invitation); receiving, by the first device from the second device and responsive to the invitation, a request to control the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0056][0050]-[0051]; [0073]-[0074]; [0088][0115]; responsive to the advertisement message remote control device requests sate information from playback devices; pairing between first device and second device initiated second device responsive to advertisement receipt by second device); receiving, at the first device following the request, a command from the second device to modify the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0053][0056][0115]; [0119]; remote control device will send request and commands to the playback device; remote control device may presents volume control to the user of the remote control device for remotely controlling the playback volume of the playback device); and modifying, by the first device and responsive to the command, the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0062]; [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein providing the invitation to the second device comprises providing the invitation to the second device directly from the first device (Iyer et al; Para [0047]; peer to peer advertisement interpreted as direct invitation), and wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request at the first device from the second device over a network (Iyer et al; Para [0056][0073]; remote control establish network connections with playback device after receipt of advertisement).
Regarding claim 3, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the invitation is free of identifying information of the first device or a user of the first device (Iyer et al; Para [0047]; playback device can advertise that they are capable of receiving and presenting media; capacity of receiving and presenting is interpreted as invitation free of identifying information).
Regarding claim 13, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the speaker comprise a speaker of a vehicle, a portable speaker, or a speaker in a building (Iyer et al; Para [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Iyer et al disclose a method, comprising: receiving, by a first device from a second device that is outputting audio content via a speaker that is separate from the second device (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; remote control device interpreted as first device and playback devices interpreted as second device; playback device can be local speaker or external speaker as in the case of a set top box and a wireless speaker), an invitation to control the audio content being output by the second device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; remote control device interpreted as first device receives advertisement from playback devices interpreted as second device; advertisement interpreted as invitation); providing, by the first device to the second device and responsive to the invitation, a request to control the audio content being output by the second device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0056][0050]-[0051]; [0073]-[0074]; [0088][0115]; based on advertisement message remote control device interpreted as first device provide requests state information of playback devices interpreted as second device); and providing, by the first device to the second device following the request, a command to modify the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0053][0056][0115]; [0119]; remote control device will send commands to the playback device to modify audio playback; remote control device may presents volume control to the user of the media control device for remotely controlling the playback volume of the playback device).
Regarding claim 19, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 17, wherein receiving the invitation comprises receiving the invitation directly from the second device at the first device (Iyer et al; Para [0047]; peer to peer advertisement interpreted as direct invitation), and wherein providing the request comprises providing the request to the second device from the first device via a network (Iyer et al; Para [0056][0073]; remote control establish network connections with playback device after receipt of advertisement).
Regarding claim 21, Iyer et al disclose an electronic device, comprising: a memory (Iyer et al; Para [0160]; [0208] storage on playback device interpreted as memory); and one or more processors (Iyer et al; Para [0199]) configured to: provide, while outputting audio content via a speaker that is separate from the electronic device (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; playback devices interpreted as electronic device can be local speaker or external speaker as in the case of a set top box and a wireless speaker), an invitation to an other electronic device to control the audio content being output by the electronic device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0072][0115]; playback devices interpreted as electronic device provide advertisement to remote control device interpreted as other electronic device; advertisement interpreted as invitation); receive, by the electronic device from the other device and responsive to the invitation, a request to control the audio content being output by the electronic device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0056][0050]-[0051]; [0073]-[0074]; [0088][0115]; responsive to the advertisement message remote control device requests state information from playback devices; pairing between electronic device and other electronic device initiated second device responsive to advertisement receipt by second device); receive, at the electronic device following the request, a command from the other device to modify the audio content being output by the electronic device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0053][0056][0115]; [0119]; remote control device will send request and commands to the playback device; remote control device may presents volume control to the user of the remote control device for remotely controlling the playback volume of the playback device); and modify, by the electronic device and responsive to the command, the audio content being output by the electronic device via the speaker (Iyer et al; Para [0062]; [0053]-[0054]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Pipher et al (US 2021/0377596 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein providing the invitation comprises providing the invitation, encrypted for a trusted contact of the first device, responsive to determining that the second device is within a range of a short-range wireless communication protocol communication of the first device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pipher et al disclose a device wherein providing the invitation comprises providing the invitation, encrypted for a trusted contact of the first device (Pipher et al; Para [0011]-[0013]), responsive to determining that the second device is within a range of a short-range wireless communication protocol communication of the first device (Pipher et al; Para [0011]-[0013][0024]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Pipher et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to provide seamless transition between devices to the user (Pipher et al; Para [0004]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Carrigan et al (US 2020/0382332 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein providing the invitation comprises providing a scannable code to the second device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Carrigan et al disclose a device wherein providing the invitation comprises providing a scannable code to the second device (Carrigan et al; Para [0318]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Carrigan et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to preserve battery energy (Carrigan et al; Para [0286]).
Regarding claim 6, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 5, but do not expressly disclose wherein providing the scannable code comprises displaying the scannable code with a display of the first device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Carrigan et al disclose a device wherein providing the scannable code comprises displaying the scannable code with a display of the first device (Carrigan et al; Para [0318]; QR code). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Carrigan et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to preserve battery energy (Carrigan et al; Para [0286]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Dunko et al (US 2008/0081558 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: receiving, by the first device, a user request to invite nearby devices to control the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker; and providing the invitation by broadcasting, from the first device using a short-range wireless communication protocol, an unencrypted invitation responsive to the user request. However, in the same field of endeavor, Dunko et al disclose a device further comprising: receiving, by the first device, a user request to invite nearby devices to control the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker (Dunko et al; Para [0030]-[0034]); and providing the invitation by broadcasting, from the first device using a short-range wireless communication protocol, an unencrypted invitation responsive to the user request (Dunko et al; Para [0030]-[0034]; device discovery interpreted as unencrypted invitation). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Dunko et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to provide greater continuity in the user's media experience (Dunko et al; Para [0016]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Shibasaki et al (US 2003/0032419 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising displaying, by a display associated with the speaker, an attribution associated with the second device, while the modified audio content is being output by the first device via the speaker. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibasaki et al disclose a device further comprising displaying, by a display associated with the speaker, an attribution associated with the second device, while the modified audio content is being output by the first device via the speaker (Shibasaki et al; Fig 4; step S427; Para [0132]-[0135]; display music list). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Shibasaki et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 9, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein modifying the audio content comprises, by the first device, obtaining different content from a server and providing the different content to the speaker via the first device for output. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibasaki et al disclose a device wherein modifying the audio content comprises, by the first device, obtaining different content from a server and providing the different content to the speaker via the first device for output (Shibasaki et al; Para [0106] [0132]-[0135]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Shibasaki et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user’s experience.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Carrigan et al (US 2020/0220914 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising, prior to outputting the audio content via the speaker with the first device, and prior to providing the invitation, providing, by the first device, a user-selectable option to allow or deny providing the invitation. However, in the same field of endeavor, Carrigan et al disclose a device further comprising, prior to outputting the audio content via the speaker with the first device, and prior to providing the invitation, providing, by the first device, a user-selectable option to allow or deny providing the invitation (Carrigan et al; Para [0417]-[0420]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the information broadcast taught by Carrigan et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been improves battery life of the electronic device by enabling the user to use the electronic device more quickly and efficiently (Carrigan et al; Para [0230]).
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Seo (US 2016/0366468 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising, by the first device: determining that the second device has moved away from the first device; and ending control of the audio content by the second device responsive to determining that the second device has moved away from the first device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo et al disclose a device further comprising, by the first device: determining that the second device has moved away from the first device (Seo et al; Para [0248]); and ending control of the audio content by the second device responsive to determining that the second device has moved away from the first device (Seo et al; Para [0248]-[0250]) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Seo et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been seamless reproduction of the content between a plurality of devices may be provided without a user being inconvenienced with a complicated procedure (Seo et al; Para [0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Iyer et al in view of Seo et al disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose further comprising, responsive to determining that the second device has moved away from the first device, providing, to the second device a playlist associated with a portion of the audio content that was output by the first device via the speaker while the second device had control of the audio content. However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo et al disclose a device further comprising, responsive to determining that the second device has moved away from the first device (Seo et al; Para [0248]), providing, to the second device a playlist associated with a portion of the audio content that was output by the first device via the speaker while the second device had control of the audio content (Seo; Para [0169]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Seo et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been seamless reproduction of the content between a plurality of devices may be provided without a user being inconvenienced with a complicated procedure (Seo et al; Para [0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising providing, responsive to the request and based in part on a determination that the second device is within a proximate range of the first device, an authorization for the second device to control the audio content. However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo et al disclose a device further comprising providing, responsive to the request and based in part on a determination that the second device is within a proximate range of the first device, an authorization for the second device to control the audio content (Seo; Para [0010][0011][0016]; user selection interpreted as authorization for the second device to control the audio content]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Seo et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been seamless reproduction of the content between a plurality of devices may be provided without a user being inconvenienced with a complicated procedure (Seo et al; Para [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Iyer et al in view of Seo et al disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein modifying the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker comprises modifying the audio content based, in part, on a determination that the second device remains within the proximate range of the first device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo et al disclose a device wherein modifying the audio content being output by the first device via the speaker comprises modifying the audio content based, in part, on a determination that the second device remains within the proximate range of the first device (Seo; Para [0010][0011][0071]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Seo et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been seamless reproduction of the content between a plurality of devices may be provided without a user being inconvenienced with a complicated procedure (Seo et al; Para [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the audio content is associated with video content and the speaker is associated with a display, such that modified audio content is part of modified video content output by the display. However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo et al disclose a device wherein the audio content is associated with video content and the speaker is associated with a display, such that modified audio content is part of modified video content output by the display (Seo; Para [0082][0121]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Seo et al as message advertisement in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been seamless reproduction of the content between a plurality of devices may be provided without a user being inconvenienced with a complicated procedure (Seo et al; Para [0075]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Wu et al (US 9,736,140 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose further comprising identifying, by the first device using encrypted information in the invitation and a key previously configured by the first device and the second device, a contact stored at the first device in association with a user of the second device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu et al disclose a device further comprising identifying, by the first device using encrypted information in the invitation and a key previously configured by the first device and the second device, a contact stored at the first device in association with a user of the second device (Wu et al; Fig 4; col 5; lines 10-30; col 7; lines 20-50). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the access control taught by Wu et al as access control in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user experience during the remote device control.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al (US 2019/0306553 A1) in view of Graham et al (US 2018/0337924 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Iyer et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein receiving the invitation comprises receiving the invitation based on a proximity of the second device to the first device, wherein the second device is associated with a subscription to a service that provides access to the audio content, and wherein the first device does not have access to the service. However, in the same field of endeavor, Graham et al disclose a device wherein receiving the invitation comprises receiving the invitation based on a proximity of the second device to the first device (Graham et al; Para [0026][0027][0031]), wherein the second device is associated with a subscription to a service that provides access to the audio content (Graham et al; Fig 11; Para [0099][0104]; user device has credentials to access audio content service), and wherein the first device does not have access to the service (Graham et al; Fig 11; Para [0099][0104]; playback does not have access to media content). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remote control taught by Graham et al as remote control in the device taught by Iyer. The motivation to do so would have been send media items to a playback device without worrying about whether the owner of the playback device has access to the same media item (Graham et al; Para [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692