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
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 5/30/2024, with priority to Provisional 63/506,104 Filing Date 06/04/2023.
Claim(s) 1-19 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 17, 18, 19 is/are independent claim(s). Claims 7-8 and 10-14 are withdrawn.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, 3-5, 9, 17-19, drawn to interaction with collaborative playlists, reactions to items, animations for item reactions, see Fig. 6C, 6E, 6F, classified in G06F3/0482 or H04N21/4825 or G06T13/80.
II. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 17-19, drawn to suggesting items, and adding items for playlist control, see Fig. 6D, classified in G06F3/165.
III. Claim 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17-19, drawn to collaboration including sharing playlist content, adding users, user profile, user avatars, see Fig. 6B, classified in G06F3/04817 or G06Q10/103.
IV. Claim 1, 2, 6, 15-16, 17-19, drawn to album cover art, see Fig. 6A, classified in G06F40/186 or G06F16/54.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II, III and IV are directed to related digital content. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are directed toward different aspects of digital content as described above. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
A separate search in separate classes is required for each group.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species I, II, III, IV. The species are independent or distinct because each species is directed toward a different aspect of digital content. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1, 2, 6, 17-19 generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: a separate search would be required for each group or species.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with SHOUVIK BISWAS (Reg. No. 68,439) on 1/13/2026 a provisional election was made WITH traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1, 2, 6, 3-5, 9, 17-19, the examiner also agreed to prosecute the invention of group IV because of the applicant’s traversal of the restriction. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 19 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 limitations “means for while a plurality of users is associated with a collaborative content playlist in a content application” and “means for in response to receiving the first input, initiating” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant should keep in mind that the “structure, material, or acts” recited in the written description must be more than “general purpose computer” or general computer components.
See MPEP 2181 (II)(B) “Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations” describes what is required for these claims (emphasis by examiner):
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim; Ji et al. US Pat. No. 10,872,116 (Yim).
Claim 1:
Yim teaches:
A method comprising:
at an electronic device in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices [Col. 20, Ln. 30-60] (device with display and processor):
while a plurality of users is associated with a collaborative content playlist in a content application [Col. 17, Ln. 42-55] (a computing device of each user on a bus may share the same playlist where each user may view and make modifications to the media and narratives in the playlist while on the bus), and while displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface associated with the content application via which the collaborative content playlist is accessed [Col. 2, Ln. 27-36, Col. 16, Ln. 59-68] (generating a shared playlist for a plurality of users, the shared playlist comprising the narrative and the song, a shared playlist could be a “collaborative content playlist”), receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first input corresponding to a request to associate a reaction with a content item of the collaborative content playlist [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (Fig. 12, playlist tab, rate a narrative (e.g., like, favorite, thumbs down)) [Col. 14, Ln. 35-50] (a thumbs down icon configured to negatively rate the narrative); and
in response to receiving the first input, initiating a process to associate a visual indicator of the reaction with the content item in the collaborative content playlist [Col. 9, Ln. 11-40] (Figs. 8-10) [Col. 10, Ln. 49-68] (favorite, when a user selects the heart icon it changes from light grey to black, this could be a “visual indicator”).
Yim teaches all the elements of the claim, however some of these elements may by in different embodiments and use different terminology, for example a shared playlist could be a “collaborative content playlist”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the different embodiments of Yim and that the difference in terminology is an obvious variant.
Claim 2:
Yim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface associated with the content application via which the collaborative content playlist is accessed is a playback user interface, and wherein the playback user interface includes one or more selectable options to control playback of the content item [Col. 15, Ln. 31-45] (Fig. 8, media player (850) may comprise a set of media controls such as play, last track, next track) [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (icon to play and pause track, skip forward and backward).
Claim 3:
Yim teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first input is received at a first selectable option of the playback user interface, and wherein the first selectable option of the playback user interface includes one or more visual indicators displaying one or more reactions associated with the content item [Col. 9, Ln. 11-40] (Figs. 8-10) [Col. 10, Ln. 49-68] (favorite, when a user selects the heart icon it changes from light grey to black, this could be a “visual indicator”) [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (Fig. 12, playlist tab, rate a narrative (e.g., like, favorite, thumbs down)) [Col. 14, Ln. 35-50] (a thumbs down icon configured to negatively rate the narrative).
Claim 5:
Yim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the process to associate a visual indicator of the reaction with the content item in the collaborative content playlist comprises displaying a
plurality of visual indicators of a plurality of pre-determined reactions that are available to associate with the content item, and receiving, via the one or more input devise, a selection of a respective visual indicator of a respective pre-determined reaction from the plurality of pre- determined reactions [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (Fig. 12, playlist tab, rate a narrative (e.g., like, favorite, thumbs down)) [Col. 14, Ln. 35-50] (a thumbs down icon configured to negatively rate the narrative) [Col. 9, Ln. 11-40] (Figs. 8-10) [Col. 10, Ln. 49-68] (favorite, when a user selects the heart icon it changes from light grey to black, this could be a “visual indicator”).
Claim 6:
Yim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the content application comprises a collaborative playlist user interface that displays one or more content items associated with the collaborative playlist, wherein the collaborative playlist user interface includes one or more selectable entries [Col. 15, Ln. 31-45] (Fig. 8, media player (850) may comprise a set of media controls such as play, last track, next track) [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (icon to play and pause track, skip forward and backward), each selectable entry associated with a content item of the collaborative playlist, the method further comprising:
while displaying the collaborative playlist user interface, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a second input corresponding to selection of a first selectable entry corresponding to a first content item in the collaborative playlist; and
in response to receiving the second input, displaying one or more visual indicators of one or more reactions associated with the first content item associated with the first selectable entry [Col. 9, Ln. 11-40] (Figs. 8-10) [Col. 10, Ln. 49-68] (favorite for each song, when a user selects the heart icon it changes from light grey to black, this could be a “visual indicator” for each reaction) [Col. 16, Ln. 43-53] (Fig. 12, playlist tab, rate a narrative (e.g., like, favorite, thumbs down)) [Col. 14, Ln. 35-50] (a thumbs down icon configured to negatively rate the narrative, one line is shown for each track of the playlist).
Claims 17-19:
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim 19 is a “means for” claim, but it is unclear which algorithm in the specification the claims are referring to, (see 35 USC 112 rejection above). So the claim is rejected with claim 1 because the steps are similar.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 17 is a “system” claim and claim 18 is a “medium” claim and claim 19 is a “means for” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim; Ji et al. US Pat. No. 10,872,116 (Yim) in view of Coffman; Patrick L. et al. US Pub. No. 20180335903 (Coffman).
Claim 4:
Yim does not appear to explicitly disclose “user interface does not include a selectable option”.
However, the disclosure of Coffman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the user interface associated with the content application while playing back a second content item that is not part of a collaborative content playlist, wherein the user interface does not include a selectable option via which a reaction can be associated with the second content item [¶ 0643-662] (Fig. 16, shared playlist, add media to a shared payback queue, there is a shared playlist but there is no “selectable option … reaction” button) [¶ 0831-843] (Fig. 23, Playlist creation interface 2324 includes a title 2324A (“Dinner Party”), an affordance 2324B for making the playlist public (e.g., make it a shared playlist that can be viewable by other users, editable by other users, but there is no “selectable option … reaction” button).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of collaborative playlist rating in Yim and the method of sharable playlists in Coffman, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of not including a reaction button in Coffman could be applied to the collaborative playlist in Yim. Coffman and Yim are similar devices because each are related to collaborative playlist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “enhances the operability of the device and makes the user-device interface more efficient” [Coffman: ¶ 0848].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim; Ji et al. US Pat. No. 10,872,116 (Yim) in view of Edwards; Brian et al. US Pub. No. 20250133270 (Edwards).
Claim 9:
Yim does not appear to explicitly disclose “the animation is based on a reaction”.
However, the disclosure of Edwards teaches:
The method of claim 1, the method comprising:
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a second input corresponding to a request to initiate playback of a respective content item of the collaborative playlist; and
in response to receiving the second input, displaying, via the display generation component, an animation, wherein the animation is based on a reaction associated with the respective content item [¶ 0053, 92, 110] (when accessing a content playlist 165, etc.), users may access a user interface provided by the application 180 that provides reaction images) [¶ 0113] (Fig. 2C, reaction emoji, animated reaction images).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of collaborative playlist rating in Yim and the method of collaborative playlists in Edwards, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of animated reactions in Edwards could be applied to the collaborative playlist in Yim. Edwards and Yim are similar devices because each are related to collaborative playlist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improved sharing platforms for content” [Edwards: ¶ 0003].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim; Ji et al. US Pat. No. 10,872,116 (Yim) in view of Weng; Bingya et al. US Pub. No. 20250013346 (Weng).
Claim 15:
Yim does not appear to explicitly disclose “a cover image associated with the collaborative content playlist that is selected by a creator”.
However, the disclosure of Weng teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising while displaying a collaborative playlist user interface that displays one or more content items associated with the collaborative playlist, displaying, in the collaborative playlist user interface, a cover image associated with the collaborative content playlist that is selected by a creator of the collaborative playlist [¶ 0012-13, 29, 31, 41, 122] (user may select a different cover, so that the electronic device displays a name and a description of a playlist corresponding to the cover, thereby enriching user selections and improving user experience).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of collaborative playlist rating in Yim and the method of collaborative playlist cover art in Weng, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of playlist cover art in Weng could be applied to the collaborative playlist in Yim. Weng and Yim are similar devices because each are related to collaborative playlist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “reducing operation steps for the user and improving user experience” [Weng: ¶ 0004].
Claim 16:
The combination of Yim and Weng discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Weng, which teaches:
The method of claim 15, further comprising:
creating the collaborative playlist, including displaying one or more representations of one or more suggested cover images for the collaborative playlist, including the cover image, that have one or more characteristics based on one or more content items included in the collaborative content playlist [¶ 0027, 122, 131-134] (cover also matches the songs in the playlist, and reflects the features of the songs in the playlist. Therefore, the user does not need to manually add the cover of the playlist, thereby reducing operation steps for the user and improving user experience) [¶ 0140-145] (when the user continues to add a song, the electronic device may update one or more of the playlist name, the playlist description, and the playlist cover).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of collaborative playlist rating in Yim and the method of collaborative playlist cover art in Weng, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of playlist cover art in Weng could be applied to the collaborative playlist in Yim. Weng and Yim are similar devices because each are related to collaborative playlist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “reducing operation steps for the user and improving user experience” [Weng: ¶ 0004].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Dorogusker; Jesse et al. US 20220417579 live broadcast, playlist, feedback, react by sending a “like” (on fire icon).
Bilinski; Brandon et al. US 20130246522 shared media playlist; ordering shared playlists in response to voting by the sharing participants; 0024-users are not allowed to vote up or down their own tracks.
Knight; Mark Stephen et al. US 20100031366 [0536] For each shared playlist the client displays the Shared playlist name, the star rating and the member who created the playlist: rated the Artist/Album/Track/Playlist (i.e. either as Love It! or Hate It!) [0495] 3) Multiply by 5 to provide a rating value out of 5.
Schupak; Nick et al. US 20180015369 plurality of playlists to be shared in the graphically simulated multiplayer gaming environment, change user icon, points.
Miyazaki; Reiko et al. US 20150347577 playlist which is shared; content submitter face image display field 1806.
Reznor; Trent et al. US 20140115461 sharing playlist, ratings or votes of artists and/or playlist curators.
Kidron; Adam US 20120221559 playlist management and sharing; thumbs up/down rating of tracks.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 4:
Hernejärvi; Perttu Santeri et al. US 20200267446 [¶ 0044, 47, 53] (the favorite control is deactivated for participants (e.g., only the host is enabled to add to the host's favorite list during the shared playback session).
Won; Agnes et al. US 20200379715 [¶ 0321] (Fig.8C-8D, remove the one or more playback controls to control playback of the first content item).
Bilinski; Brandon et al. US 20130246522 [¶ 0024] (users are not allowed to vote up or down their own tracks).
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 9:
Zeng; Sharon et al. US 20230164375 fig. 4, item may be song or music video; collaborate with other users in building queues for content playback, reaction; animated image.
Neild; Hanford Fairfax US 20230074756 custom reaction; custom animated file, a custom audiovisual file, a custom multimedia file, a custom audio file, or a library of reactions.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 15:
Dundar; Bekir B. et al. US 20200004495 graphical user interface may include a graphical depiction for one or more songs or other media items of the playlist, such as album art or a depiction of the artist.
Jehan; Tristan US 20190042648 visual effect can include various effects, such as an animated motion of turning album cover images.
Makower; David et al. 20140002470 generate cover art, generic media cover can be generated for a media item by hashing a unique identifier of the media item that remains consistent throughout the life cycle of the media item. Bytes of the hashed value can be translated into graphic parameters which are used to generate the generic graphic.
Abanami; Thamer A. et al. US 20060230331 Stylistically relevant cover images for media items are generated based on metadata for the media items.
Chaudhri; Imran US 20080168365 digital artwork for the content file is created based on metadata associated with the content file.
MCINTIRE; JOHN P. et al. US 20090248672 selecting at least one item of related content based on the metadata, and displaying the related content substantially simultaneously with display of the media.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov