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
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 4, 5, 16, 17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 4, 16 recite “the first or second group of playback device,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent and is thus considered indefinite. Claims 5, 17 do/does not remedy and is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “the user interface of the first playback device,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent and is thus considered indefinite. For the purpose of the art rejection infra the recitation will be considered to resolve the overall user interface by which the devices of the system are controlled. It this intended as a new element Applicant should correct the recitation to “a user interface of…”.
Claim 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “the first media content,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent and is thus considered indefinite.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9864571, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11442689, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12014115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown infra with regard to the ‘571 and ‘689 patent as the nature of the Sonos user interface (such as represented in Lambourne 7571014 and others) is well established; similarly the claims of ‘115 lack discussion of a display but the inclusion of a display cannot be considered a novel addition based on the well-known nature of the Sonos user interface, the claims of ‘571, ‘689, etc.
18745199
9864571
A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: determine that a first playback device is to be shared between (i) a first group of playback devices that includes at least a second playback device and (ii) a second group of playback devices that includes at least a third playback device;
A tangible non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a processor to perform operations comprising: ...
determine that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of first media content in the first group of playback devices;
determining that a first playback device is active in a first bonded zone, wherein the first bonded zone comprises a second playback device of a first zone group, wherein when the first playback device is active in the first bonded zone the first and second playback devices of the first bonded zone are configured to synchronously play back different portions of first audio content;
cause a control device to display, via a user interface, a first indication that the first playback device is a member of the first group of playback devices;
Claim 2: providing an indication on a display that the first playback device is shared between the first bonded zone and the second bonded zone.
determine a command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices such that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of second media content with the second group of playback devices;
after the determining, detecting that the first playback device has become inactive in the first bonded zone; and in response to the detecting, sharing the first playback device with a second zone group comprising a third playback device but not comprising the second playback device,
based on the command, determine whether the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices;
<the determining falls after the command in the claim as filed>
based on determining that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices, cause the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, wherein the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of the second media content with the second group of playback devices; and
wherein the sharing includes enabling the first playback device to be active in a second bonded zone, wherein the second bonded zone comprises the first playback device and the third playback device, and wherein the first and third playback devices are configured to synchronously play back different portions of second audio content when the first playback device is active in the second bonded zone and inactive in the first bonded zone, the first bonded zone not comprising the third playback device.
cause the control device to display, via the user interface, a second indication that the first playback device has joined the second group of playback devices.
<while the claims do not make this recitation such display naturally follows from a user interface designed to track the response of a media playback system>
18745199
11442689
A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: determine that a first playback device is to be shared between (i) a first group of playback devices that includes at least a second playback device and (ii) a second group of playback devices that includes at least a third playback device;
A first playback device comprising: at least one processor; non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor and thereby cause the first playback device to be configured to: receive an instruction to share a playback device between (i) a first group of playback devices that includes at least the first playback device and (ii) a second group of playback devices that includes at least a second playback device;
determine that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of first media content in the first group of playback devices;
receive a command for the first playback device to play back given media content;
cause a control device to display, via a user interface, a first indication that the first playback device is a member of the first group of playback devices;
Claim 9: provide an indication to a controller device for presentation on a graphical display that indicates the shared playback device has joined the first group of playback devices.
determine a command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices such that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of second media content with the second group of playback devices;
determine that the shared playback device is currently configured for synchronous playback of media content in the second group of playback device; ...based on the received command, transmit a request to the second playback device for an indication of whether the shared playback device is available to join the first group of playback devices such that the shared playback device is configured for synchronous playback of media content with the first group of playback devices;
based on the command, determine whether the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices;
if the first playback device receives an indication from the second playback device that the shared playback device is available:
based on determining that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices, cause the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, wherein the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of the second media content with the second group of playback devices; and
transmit a command to the shared playback device to join the first group of playback devices; and play back the given media content in synchrony with the first group of playback devices including at least the shared playback device;
cause the control device to display, via the user interface, a second indication that the first playback device has joined the second group of playback devices.
<while the claims do not make this recitation such display naturally follows from a user interface designed to track the response of a media playback system>
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 8483853 hereinafter Lam further in view of Lambourne: 8290603 hereinafter Lam2.
Regarding claim 1
Lam teaches:
A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor (Lam: Abstract; Figs 2A, 2C: a network of one or more player devices operative of a processor under direction of coded instructions retrieved from memory and of one or more controller devices operative of a processor under direction of coded instructions retrieved from memory) such that the system is configured to:
determine that a first playback device is to be shared between (i) a first group of playback devices that includes at least a second playback device and (ii) a second group of playback devices that includes at least a third playback device (Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Fig 3A, 3B: system operative to configure a plurality of players into one or more ad hoc or stored groups, scenes, etc. wherein a single player can be a member of multiple different groups;);
determine that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of first media content in the first group of playback devices (id.: each/any device may be grouped for synchronous playback wherein such a determination is displayed as depicted with respect to the Bedroom/Family Room/Dining Room group or players and/or Garage/Garden group or players in figure 3B; in this way one or more playback devices, parameters, values, etc. thereof are set according to the joining of devices in concert with the instantiated scene);
cause a control device to display, via a user interface, an indication that the first playback device is a member of the first group of playback devices (id.);
determine a command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices such that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of second media content with the second group of playback devices (id. and Col 10:15-10:24; claim 7; Fig 6: such as by invoking a zone scene wherein a particular device such as the Den player is part of a scene including the Garage/Garden players);
based on the command, determine whether the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices (Lam: Col 6:7-6:10, 9:35-9:38; Figs 3A, 3B, 5A, etc.: a device is determined to be available shown upon the user interface);
based on determining that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices (Lam: 10:15-10:24; claim 7; Fig 6: when a scene is active the system checks that devices therein are in condition to react in a synchronized manner as part of the instantiation of the scene), cause the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, wherein the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of the second media content with the second group of playback devices (Lam: Col 1:49-2:3, 10:15-10:24; claim 7; Fig 6: such as by invoking a saved zone scene or otherwise controlling the user interface to join a first device with a different extant group than the current group in which the first device participates); and
cause the control device to display, via the user interface, an indication that the first playback device has joined the second group of playback devices (Lam: Fig : such as by adapting the display of the figures to represent the current state of the network of playback devices).
Lam strongly suggests the first and second indication as recited as the display of groupings such as depicted in figure 3B, etc. can be expected to additionally change from a display depicting the rightmost indicia of the zone list comprising scene groupings into a second indicia with a distinct set of second zones in the manner claimed.
In a related field of endeavor Lam2 teaches a system and method for configuring a plurality of playback devices (Lam2: Abstract: Col 1:49-2:3; Figs 2A, 2C) operable to;
determine that a first playback device is to be shared between (i) a first group of playback devices that includes at least a second playback device and (ii) a second group of playback devices that includes at least a third playback device (Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: a scene can comprise multiple sets of linked players, linked groups of players, etc., wherein a resulting display of grouped devices depends form a particular selection of displayed devices upon a user interface); determine that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of first media content in the first group of playback devices (id.);
cause a control device to display, via a user interface, a first indication that the first playback device is a member of the first group of playback devices (id.: such as the display of the grouped devices of figure 3E based on the user determination of grouping such as in figure 3D);
determine a command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices such that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of second media content with the second group of playback devices (id.: such as a result of returning to the display screen for grouping devices in figure 3D and selecting a distinct grouping comprising the first device and a second set of grouped devices and displaying the change within the resulting figure 3E based on a new, subsequent, etc. user determination of groupings upon the figure 3D user interface); and cause the control device to display, via the user interface, a second indication that the first playback device has joined the second group of playback devices (id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to display a first and second set of groupings with the first and second indicia as taught or suggested by Lam 2 using the Lam device and method. The average skilled practitioner would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of tracking user changes to sets of groups in a user interface for a media playback environment, network, etc. and would have expected predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine that the first playback device is to be shared between the first and second groups of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
receive, via the user interface of the control device, user input indicating a command for the first playback device to be shared between the first and second groups of playback devices; based on the command, cause the first playback device to update a shared device identifier indicating that the first playback device is a shared device; and cause the control device to display, via the user interface, a third indication that the first playback device is a shared device , (please see Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3B, 6; and Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: the creation, storing, invoking, and instantiation of a first and second zone scene in the manner discussed supra is considered using input for the sharing of a device upon both scenes, that is the leftmost figure of Lam 3C is an indication of playback devices, in this figure the Den indicator is not grouped, the recited “first indicator” can be considered to refer to the rightmost figure of Lam where the Den is in a first grouping, an unshown indicator of Lam and corresponding to the instantiator of a next zone scene and/or an operation of the Lam2 figure 3D interface wherein the Den is bounded by a line containing the Garage/Garden players and/or grouped similarly in the Lam2 Figure 3E user interface is considered to encompass the recited third indicia). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine whether the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
determine whether the first playback device is playing back the first media content or has played back the first media content within a threshold amount of time prior to receiving the command to join the second group of playback devices; and the system further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: determine that the first playback device is neither playing back the first media content nor has played back the first media content within the threshold amount of time, determine that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices (Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: such as in the manner necessary for the display of an idle player in the figure 3D user interface).
While Lam in view of Lam2 does not explicitly discuss determining availability based on if a media player has played back the first media content within the threshold amount of time Examiner considers this obvious as a matter of design choice, that is, it is desirable that a user interface should show that a device has stopped playing back content in substantially real time with the actual stopping, in practice this comes with a delay or lag based on the stopping and the availability to accept a next command and as such management of the display in the manner claimed is considered part of the desired UX practice on the part of a designer of the user interface, it would be further obvious to limit availability based on this design choice such as for allowing a short reset time, short configuration time, etc. for the device and/or a longer cool off time for the device before making the device available to join in synchronous playback with a new group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom and/or realizable without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine whether the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
receive, from the control device, an indication of a preferred group of the first or second groups of playback device, wherein the preferred group comprises the second group (Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3B, 6: such as the saving of a particular scene comprising a particular grouping of a desired shared playback device); (Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: such as an ad hoc grouping resulting from including a desired shared device in a particular current playback group); and the system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: based on the indication of the preferred group, determine that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices (Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3B, 6: such as by invocation of the desired configuration at a desired time, such as for a “morning” or other time dependent grouping). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 4, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: before determining that the first playback device is available to join the second group of playback devices:
cause the control device to display, via the user interface, a prompt requesting confirmation that the first playback device should join the second group of playback devices; and receive, via the user interface of the control device, user input confirming that the first playback device is to join the second group of playback devices (Lam2: Figs 3D, 3E: while not technically a prompt window, the figure 3D user interface allows for this type of confirmation based on user interaction). Examiner takes official notice that providing alerts to users based on the acceptability of upcoming events was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of confirming with a user the desirability of invoking a time dependent scene and allowing a user to confirm or deny the invocation of the scene based on clicking an OK button or similar; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
before determining the command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices: receive, at the control device, state information from the first playback device indicating that the first playback device is (i) playing back the first media content in synchrony with the first group of playback devices and (ii) available to be shared with one or more other groups of playback devices (please see Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3B, 6; and Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: such as by display of state variables, etc. sufficient to create the rightmost display of figure 3C and or a first, second, etc. display of system configurations such as upon figure 3E and based on invocation of a scene and/or user operation of the figure 3D user interface). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 6, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the control device is configured to:
display, via the user interface, representations of the one or more other groups of playback devices (Lam: Fig 3C) ; and receive, via the user interface of the control device, user input indicating a selection of a given representation corresponding to the second group of playback devices (Lam2: such as by operation of figure 3D). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to cause the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices further comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
update one or more audio playback parameters of the first playback device from a respective first value to a respective second value different from the respective first value (please see Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3B, 6; and Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: such as by the display of a second version of figure 3E resulting from a user invocation of a scene and/or user operation of the figure 3D user interface). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices is received via user input provided at the user interface of the first playback device (id.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the command for the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices comprises a voice command detected by one of the first, second, or third playback devices. Examiner takes official notice that voice user interfaces were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of operating the Lam in view of Lam2 user interfaces to conduct the variously recited groupings of media players for playback of user desired media; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to cause the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices further comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: begin playing back the second media content in synchrony with at least the third playback device (Lam2: Col 8:54-9:14, 9:54-10:22; Fig 3A-3E: such as by linking the first playback device with a third playback device which is currently delivering a particular media resulting in the figure 3E display thereof). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Lam2as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Lam2 to the modified device of Lam and Lam2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 13, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 8483853 hereinafter Lam further in view of Lambourne: 8290603 hereinafter Lam2 as applied to claims 1-11 supra and further in view of Lambourne: 7571014: hereinafter Lam3.
Regarding claim 12
Lam in view of Lam2 teaches:
A system wherein the first playback device operates at a plurality of particular parameters based on user implementation of an interface and/or invocation of a particular scene (Lam: Col 2:37-2:45); while the first playback device is part of the first group of playback devices, the first playback device is configured to play back a first set of parameters such as volume of a first media content in synchrony with playback of a set of parameters such as volume of the first media content by at least the second playback device (Lam: Col 2:37-2:45: diverse volume parameters instantiated along with other scene metadata); and after causing the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, causing the first group of playback devices to play back the first and second spectrums of the first media content in synchrony.
Lam in view of Lam2 does not explicitly discuss a system wherein: the first playback device is a subwoofer; while the first playback device is part of the first group of playback devices, the first playback device is configured to play back a first spectrum of the first media content in synchrony with playback of a second spectrum of the first media content by at least the second playback device; and after causing the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, causing the first group of playback devices to play back the first and second spectrums of the first media content in synchrony.
In a related field of endeavor Lam3 teaches a system and method for controlling output parameters of a plurality of networked playback devices wherein the first playback device is a subwoofer (Lam3: Fig 7D such as by operating the first device in a configuration wherein the first device is configured with the treble parameter set leftmost and a bass parameter set rightmost); while the first playback device is part of the first group of playback devices, the first playback device is configured to play back a first spectrum of the first media content in synchrony with playback of a second spectrum of the first media content by at least the second playback device (Lam3: Fig 7D such as by operating the first playback device as above in concert with at least a second and third playback device wherein the frequency controls are set to more neutral settings) ; and after causing the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, causing the first group of playback devices to play back the first and second spectrums of the first media content in synchrony (Lam:3: Fig 7D: such as resulting from the removal of a device operating as a subwoofer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the Lam3 user interface controls within the Lam in view of Lam2 user interface for at least the purpose of increasing the playback parameters which a user can operate, save, and instantiate thereby providing a more fully functional user interface; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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 (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692