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.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 4, 16, suffice to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 4, 5, 16, 17 as asserted in the Non-Final rejection of 3/2/26.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 suffice to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection of the claim as asserted in the Non-Final rejection of 3/2/26.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 suffice to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection of the claim as asserted in the Non-Final rejection of 3/2/26.
Claim 5 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 “before causing the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices based on the indication of the preferred group,” there is no step in parent claims 4 or 1 operable to cause the first playback device to join the second group based on the recited dynamics, the claim is thus considered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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. The amendments to the claims filed 6/2/26 are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims of the parent applications.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 8483853 hereinafter Lam further in view of Svendsen: 20140122590 hereinafter Sven and further in view of Lambourne: 7571014 hereinafter Lam_2.
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, 9:11-9:35, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Fig 3A, 3B, 4: 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 or scenes and such scenes can be invoked at particular times);
determine that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of first media content in the first group of playback devices (Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 7:30-7:42, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Fig 3A, 3B: 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 (Lam: Col 9:35-9:48; Fig 3A, 3B, 5A, 5B: UI for determining zone groupings);
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 9:35-9:48, 10:15-10:24; claim 7; Fig ; Fig 3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, 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 wherein the first playback device is determined to be available on the network (Lam: Col 6:7-6:10, 9:35-9:48, 10:15-10:24; Figs 3A, 3B, 5A, 6, etc.: a device is determined to be available shown upon the user interface; a devices is also checked for status when a grouping process, such as invoking a scene is underway, to determine availability in the form of a player being in a condition to react in a synchronized manner),
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 3A, 3B: such as by adapting the display of the figures to represent the current state of the network of playback devices).
Lam teaches or suggests that 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 and teaches or suggests designating the first playback device determining that a first playback devices is to be shared between a first and second group of playback devices such as upon invocation of a particularly scene conforming to the recitation. Lam does not clearly suggest a system wherein the first playback device is determined to be available based on the first playback device neither playing back the first media content nor having played back the first media content within a threshold amount of time.
In a related field of endeavor Sven teaches a system and method for managing a plurality of user devices with respect to a plurality of user accounts (Sven: Abstract; Figs 2A, 4A, etc.) wherein the system tracks availability and determines an action of the system based on a media item history indicating whether the media item is currently playing or has been played with a predetermined time period (Sven: ¶ 7, 112, 120, 121: a media item removed from consideration based on recent playback by a user device or based on a no repeat metadata); the system further operable to track the media metadata in concert with playback device states assigned to one or more media devices of a user (Sven: ¶ 58, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to manage the device state and availability of the Lam devices by combining with the media item history with respect to particular device IDs as taught or suggested by Sven and for at least the purpose of preventing media playback redundancy or preventing playback of a particular media; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Lam in view of Sven does not explicitly discuss the device state medtata residing on a particular playback device and governing device availability.
In a related field of endeavor Lam2 teaches a system and method for configuring a plurality of playback devices (Lam_2: Abstract; Figs 2A, 2C, 7A-7D) operable to track a playback state of each/any playback device (Lam_2: Col 5:55-5:67, 7:35-7:42, 10:10-10:15, etc.; Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D: controller displays playback state, currently playing media, etc.; a per playback device status display); in this way a joining, grouping, etc. of zones is governed by playback state—what a playback device is playing or ready to play); based on the eligibility of the playback device to be grouped (Lam_2: 2:55-2:63, 3:14-3:21; Figs 3A-3C, etc. system maintains, displays, etc. a list of players available, eligible, etc. for grouping) which allows sharing of devices across groups based on particular constraints (Lam_2: 9:53-9:60: system determines device availability, eligibility). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shared zone, scene invoking system of Lam in view of Sven to accommodate the device state governed groupings as taught or suggested by Lam_2 for the purpose of utilizing metadata, such as the playback device and song settings of Sven, to govern device availability and eligibility to join a playback group delivering a particular song and for at least the purpose of preventing music disliked or recently played by a user from being delivered to a user, a user playback device, a user location such as a room, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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, 4, 5A-5C, 6 and Lam_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D: the creation, storing, invoking, and instantiation of a first and/or 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 3B, or in Figs 3 of Lam_2 is an indication of playback devices, the shown user interface displays operate to allow a user interface to share a device such as a first playback device with a scene comprising the second playback device and a scene comprising the third playback device, and generate indicia thereof for confirming appropriate configuration and delivering playback based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, further comprising 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 (Lam_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7C: such as in the manner necessary for the display of an idle player in the figure 3D user interface); (Sven: ¶ 7, 112, 120, 121: a media item removed from consideration, availability, eligibility, based on recent playback by a user device or based on a no repeat metadata; the metadata tracked in concert with user and user device settings); (Lam_2: playback status, dynamics thereof govern availability and eligibility of a playback device to join a grouping).
Examiner has asserted and maintains the obviousness of determining availability based on whether a media player has played back the first media content within the threshold amount of time, such as as a matter of design choice. The claim is thus considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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:
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 first group (Lam: Abstract; Col 1:49-2:3, 9:59-10:27, etc.; Claim 1, 5, etc.; Figures 3A, 3B, 4, 6: such as the saving of a particular scene comprising a particular grouping of a desired shared playback device, such as at a particular time of day, day of week, etc. which would invoke as scheduled in the presence of grouped playback by a second group); and after causing the first playback device to join the second group of playback devices, determine a command for the first playback device to rejoin the first group of playback devices such that the first playback device is configured for synchronous playback of third media content with the first group of playback devices (Lam_2: such as by operation of the figure 3A-3C, 7A-C user interface); based on the command for the first playback device to rejoin the first group of playback devices, determine that the first playback device is either playing back the second media content or has played back the second media content within the threshold amount of time (Sven: ¶ 7, 58, 112, 120, 121:such as in keeping with maintenance of the Sven playback history, user preferences, etc.); and: 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_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7C: such as in keeping with a user expressed preference for a first group over that of an invoked pre stored scene by operation of the figure 3A-3C, 7A-C user interface). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 (Lam_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7C: while not technically a prompt window, the user interface of the figures embodies this type of confirmation based on user interaction). Examiner has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it is thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that providing alerts to users based on the acceptability of upcoming events 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. The claim is thus considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 Lam_2: 2:55-2:63, 3:14-3:21; Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D, etc. system maintains, displays, etc. a list of players available, eligible, etc. for grouping such as by display of state variables, availability, eligibility, etc. data sufficient to create the user interface displays the figures). 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. The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 3B); (Lam_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D) ; 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 (Lam: such as by further or subsequent operations upon the representations of figure 3B); (Lam_2: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D: such as by further or subsequent operations upon the representations of the figures). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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: Figures 3B, 5C 6; and Lam_2: Fig 3A-3C, 4A, 4B, 7D: such as by user operation upon the displayed user interfaces of the figures). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 (please see Lam: Figures 3B, 5C 6; and Lam_2: Fig 3A-3C, 4A, 4B, 7D: such as by user operation upon the displayed user interfaces of the figures; the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed interface is considered to resolve a displayed user interface operable to receive a user input to create, instantiate, dissolve groupings; and the user interface displayed upon the controller is considered a user interface of the first playback device). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it is thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that a voice user interface would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of operating the taught user interfaces to conduct the variously recited groupings of media players for playback of user desired media. The claim is thus considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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 (Lam: Col 4:19-4:23, etc.; Fig s 3A, 3B, 4-6, etc.: system operates to create, instantiate groups for synchronous playback, such as by operating the user interface in concert with the figures to arrive at the claimed groupings, transitions, etc.); (Lam_2: Abstract; Col 7:38-7:42, etc.; Figs 3A-3C, &a-7C, etc.: system operates to create, instantiate groups for synchronous playback, such as by operating the user interface in concert with the figures to arrive at the claimed groupings, transitions, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Lam in view of Sven in view of Lam_2 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); wherein: the first playback device is a subwoofer (Lam_2: 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 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: Col 4:19-4:23, etc.; Fig s 3A, 3B, 4-6, etc.: system operates to create, instantiate groups for synchronous playback, such as by operating the user interface in concert with the figures to arrive at the claimed groupings, transitions, etc.); (Lam_2: Abstract; Col 7:38-7:42, etc.; Figs 3A-3C, &a-7C, etc.: system operates to create, instantiate groups for synchronous playback, such as by operating the user interface in concert with the figures to arrive at the claimed groupings, transitions, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Sven and Lam_2 as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Sven, and/or Lam_2 to the modified device of Lam, Sven, and Lam_2; 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with claim amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 6/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 over Lambourne ‘199, in view of Lambourne ‘603 (claims 1-11, 13-20) and Lambourne ‘199, in view of Lambourne ‘603, in view of Lambourne ‘014 (claim 12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lambourne ‘199, in view of Svendsen, in view of Lambourne ‘014.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights