DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/24/2026.
Claims 13-27 are currently pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues on page 10 that “Snibbe’s Publish control 572 causes “a modified media item to be sent to the server system 108” and “sending a completed or modified media item to a server is fundamentally different from sending a sound effect parameter to a cloud server and generating, by the cloud server, a sound effect configuration filed based on the sound effect parameter”. Applicant is of the opinion that Snibbe teaches of applying effects locally and transmitting the finished product to the server.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0101], and corresponding Figs. 4A-4H, an interface is provided for developing media item effects where the interface includes effect specification including one or more parameters. Snibbe then teaches in paragraph [0102], that “in some implementations, the effects editor application is configured to publish or share effects (e.g., effect specifications and/or effect metadata) in response to a user request (e.g., a user selection of a publish or share button in the user interface).” While the Examiner has cited Fig. 5F in the rejection, this is to clearly show that Snibbe comprises the functionality of a publishing control. Snibbe further teaches in paragraph [0102] that “In some implementations, the effect specifications are transmitted to a server system (e.g., server system 108, FIG. 3) for storage and/or publications”. As described in the rejection, Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0030] that “In some implementations, the server system 108 also employs various virtual devices and/or services of third party service providers (e.g., third-party cloud service providers) to provide the underlying computing resources and/or infrastructure resources of server system 108”, which is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s “cloud server”.
Applicant next argues on page 11 that Snibbe does not teach a sound effect production web page received from a cloud server and that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Snibbe with Sims is flawed. Applicant is of the opinion that while Snibbe teaches of web pages, Snibbe is silent regarding a webpage served by a cloud server for generating sound effect parameters and the Examiner’s reliance on the hardware of Snibbe is misplaced.
The Examiner again respectfully disagrees.
Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0032] of a computer hardware system (as Applicant describes) which includes “a presentation module 220”. Snibbe then teaches paragraph [0035], which states “a presentation module 220 for enabling presentation of information (e.g., a media item, effect, a user interface for an application or a webpage, audio and/or video content, text, etc.) via the one or more output devices 212 (e.g., displays, speakers, etc.)”. The rejection has been updated to clarify this functionality. These teachings of Snibbe have been interpreted as proper motivation for the device of Snibbe to receive and display a webpage for editing effect files such as in Sims.
Lastly, Applicant argues on page 11 that as amended claim 23 now comprises the limitation of “the first sound effect parameter is for the cloud server to generate a first sound effect configuration file”, this explicitly requires the configuration file received by the second device to be generated by the cloud server based on the parameters.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Simply describing a parameter as being “for” a server to generate a file, does not explicitly require the server to use said parameter. While the amended limitation of claim 13 explicitly describes the server generating a configuration file based on a parameter, claim 23 does not contain such an explicit context. For example, under broadest reasonable interpretation, utilizing the limitations of claim 23, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the first effect parameter being sent to the cloud server and simply being ignored, regardless of the parameter being “for” the cloud server to generate a first sound effect configuration file, as claim 23 currently recites no limitations of what may or may not occur once the first sound effect parameter is received.
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) 13-18, 20, and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snibbe et al. (US 2018/0239524), hereinafter Snibbe, in view of Sims et al. (US 2010/0274714), hereinafter Sims.
As per claim 13, Snibbe teaches the following:
a method, applied to an audio processing system comprising a first electronic device, a second electronic device, and a cloud server, (see abstract and paragraph [0030] for “cloud server”), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining, by the first electronic device, first As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0026], server side module 106 stores the necessary files including “audio media items”. Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0030], that the system server 108 may be a cloud service;
displaying, by the first electronic device, the sound effect production . See Fig. 4A;
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first sound effect parameter entered by a user on the sound effect production web page. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [010], and corresponding Fig. 4A, effect specification 402-1 includes “one or more parameters, properties, and/or fields that are adjustable by a user”;
sending, by the first electronic device, the first sound effect parameter to the cloud server. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 5F, an editing interface may have a “Publish” control 572 which causes a modified media item to be sent to the server system 108. Further see paragraph [0102] where effects may be published;
. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0116], and corresponding Fig. 5A, a feed of media items may be displayed which have been generated by users in a community and selectable through touch selection 522;
. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0119], and corresponding Fig. 5B, the selected media content is played;
obtaining, by the second electronic device, target audio by performing sound effect processing on original audio based on the first sound effect configuration file. As Snibbe teaches in paragraphs [0121] and [0123], and corresponding Figs. 5C and 5E, upon the user selecting the “remix” control (530 of Fig. 5C), the user is presented with options to edit the selected media item, including an option to modify audio effects 562. As Snibbe further shows in Fig. 5E, an option for adding an audio track 566 is presented. Therefore, the user may receive an audio effect media item and “remix” the item by adding a selected audio track (original audio). Further see paragraph [0125], “remix mode”; and
playing, by the second electronic device, the target audio. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0126], and corresponding Fig. 5F, a preview of the modified media item is played.
However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the requests and responses being sent from and to the cloud server. In a similar field of endeavor, Sims teaches of a method of sharing presets (effects) for digital media (see abstract). As Sims further shows in Fig. 3, effect designers 310 upload/download the presets from a web interface 340. Sims shows in Fig. 2 that the interface is a server computer 208.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the web based transactions of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Snibbe directly teaches of the use of webpages in paragraphs [0032] and [0035], and would therefore require such transactions for the webpages to be usable. Sims further teaches in paragraph [0081] that the method may be applicable to digital sound files, i.e., sound effects.
Furthermore, while Snibbe teaches of a cloud server, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the server generating a configuration filed based on the parameters. Sims further teaches the following:
generating, by the cloud server, a first sound effect configuration file based on the first sound effect parameter. Sims teaches in paragraph [0040] that at step 420, that a host plug-in creates a set of data including parameters and other inputs in a common XML (sound effect parameters of the modified system) and is uploaded to a website (cloud server of modified system) where it can be translated into or conformed to a neutral schema (a first sound effect configuration file is generated based on the sound effect parameters) and stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the server creation of neutral schema files of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0004], such neutral schema benefit users in allowing effects to be shared between formally non-compatible applications.
Regarding claim 14, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, as described above, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of server based transactions. Sims teaches the following:
wherein obtaining, by the first electronic device, first web page data of the sound effect production web page from the cloud server comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first input of the user for opening the sound effect production web page; sending, by the first electronic device in response to the first input, a first web page request to the cloud server; and receiving, by the first electronic device, the first web page data sent by the cloud server. As Sims teaches in paragraph [0030], server computer 208 stores and routes information regarding the web pages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the web based transactions of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Snibbe directly teaches of the use of webpages in paragraph [0032] and would therefore require such transactions for the webpages to be usable.
The examiner would like to further note that applicant’s claim appears to solely be directed to common functionality of a web browsing application.
Regarding claim 15, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. Snibbe further teaches the following:
wherein: before sending, by the second electronic device to the cloud server, the download request for the first sound effect configuration file, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the second electronic device, a fourth input of the user for downloading the first sound effect configuration file, wherein the second electronic device sends the download request for the first sound effect configuration file to the cloud server in response to the fourth input. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0117], and corresponding Fig. 5A, a specific media file is selected for reproduction via a touch 522 on said specific media file’s corresponding tile.
Regarding claim 16, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of an effect plug-in. Sims teaches the following:
wherein receiving, by the second electronic device, the first sound effect configuration file sent by the cloud server comprises:
receiving, by the second electronic device, the first sound effect configuration file sent by the cloud server and a first sound effect algorithm plug-in, wherein the second electronic device obtains the target audio by performing sound effect processing on the original audio based on the first sound effect configuration file and the first sound effect algorithm plug-in. As Sims shows in Fig. 7, and corresponding paragraph [0057], if the requested preset is not for a requester schema (the plug-in the requester is utilizing), a modification is applied to the preset. This is interpreted as encompassing applicant’s limitation in the effect is sent (preset of Sims) along with the modification for the requester’s plug-in (sound effect algorithm plug-in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the plug-in modifications of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0002], such modifications benefit users when different plug-ins are utilized to create and play back a file.
Regarding claim 17, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. Snibbe further teaches the following:
wherein t before sending, by the second electronic device to the cloud server, the download request for the first sound effect configuration file corresponding to the first sound effect parameter, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first sound effect description and a third input for confirming release of the first sound effect parameter that are entered by the user. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0126], and corresponding Fig. 5F, an editing user may enter hashtags 574 to describe the edited effect;
sending, by the first electronic device in response to the third input, a release request to the cloud server, wherein the release request comprises an identifier of the first sound effect parameter and the first sound effect description. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 5F, in response to the user selecting publish option 572, the edited media item and all related information is sent to the server 108;
generating, by the cloud server in response to the release request, first sound effect display information based on the first sound effect description; sending, by the cloud server, the first sound effect display information to the second electronic device. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0116], and corresponding Fig. 5A, a feed of media items is presented to a viewing user. Therefore, upon a first user utilizing the publish option 572, the server 108 receives the published media item, and subsequently displays said item to a second user via interface 5A; and
displaying, by the second electronic device, the first sound effect display information. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0116], various identifying information may be presented with each media item, such as title 512 (display information).
Regarding claim 18, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 17 as described above. Snibbe further teaches the following:
wherein before receiving, by the first electronic device, the first sound effect description and the third input for confirming release of the first sound effect parameter that are entered by the user, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second input of the user for auditioning first music data based on the first sound effect parameter. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0101], and corresponding Fig. 1A, an effect being designed 402-1 may be applied to a piece of media 404;
playing, by the first electronic device, the first music data or the second music data. See Fig. 4A, 404.
However, Snibbe does not explicitly teaches of sending an “audition request” to the server. Sims teaches the following:
sending, by the first electronic device in response to the second input, an audition request to the cloud server. As Sims shows in Fig. 8, and corresponding paragraphs [0062] and [0063], the server may receive a selected effect 825 and a selected piece of content to which the effect is to be applied 835;
obtaining, by the cloud server in response to the audition request, second music data by performing sound effect processing on the first music data based on the first sound effect configuration file. As Sims teaches in paragraph [0063], and corresponding Fig. 8, the server receives media to which the effect is to be applied, such as, for example, the user uploading the media;
sending, by the cloud server, the first music data or the second music data to the first electronic device. As Sims shows in Fig. 8, step 850, the media with applied effect is transferred to the requestor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect designing of Snibbe with the server side application of effects of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such server side application may benefit a user of Snibbe in reducing the processing requirement by the designing device. Furthermore, as the server of Sims may convert an effect to different schemas, the modification would further benefit users in observe ring how an effect would function in different plug-ins.
Regarding claim 20, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of an effect plug-in. Sims teaches the following:
wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining, by the cloud server based on the first sound effect parameter, a first sound effect algorithm plug-in corresponding to the first sound effect parameter from one or more sound effect algorithm plug-ins stored in a sound effect database. As Sims shows in Fig. 7, and corresponding paragraph [0057], if the requested preset is not for a requester schema (the plug-in the requester is utilizing), a modification is applied to the preset. This is interpreted as encompassing applicant’s limitation in the effect is sent (preset of Sims) along with the modification for the requester’s plug-in (sound effect algorithm plug-in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the plug-in modifications of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0002], such modifications benefit users when different plug-ins are utilized to create and play back a file.
As per claim 23, Snibbe teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories are coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memories are configured to store computer program code, (see abstract), the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and when the one or more processors execute the computer instructions, the electronic device is enabled to perform:
obtaining As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0026], server-side module 106 stores the necessary files including “audio media items”. Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0030], that the system server 108 may be a cloud service;
displaying the sound effect production See Fig. 4A;
receiving a first sound effect parameter entered by a user on the sound effect production s Snibbe teaches in paragraph [010], and corresponding Fig. 4A, effect specification 402-1 includes “one or more parameters, properties, and/or fields that are adjustable by a user”; and
sending the first sound effect parameter to the cloud server. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 5F, an editing interface may have a “Publish” control 572 which causes a modified media item to be sent to the server system 108.
However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the requests and responses being sent from and to the cloud server. In a similar field of endeavor, Sims teaches of a method of sharing presets (effects) for digital media (see abstract). As Sims further shows in Fig. 3, effect designers 310 upload/download the presets from a web interface 340. Sims shows in Fig. 2 that the interface is a server computer 208.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the web based transactions of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Snibbe directly teaches of the use of webpages in paragraph [0032] and would therefore require such transactions for the webpages to be usable. Sims further teaches in paragraph [0081] that the method may be applicable to digital sound files, i.e., sound effects.
Furthermore, while Snibbe teaches of a cloud server, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the server generating a configuration filed based on the parameters. Sims further teaches the following:
wherein the first sound effect parameter is for the cloud server to generate a first sound effect configuration file. Sims teaches in paragraph [0040] that at step 420, that a host plug-in creates a set of data including parameters and other inputs in a common XML (sound effect parameters of the modified system) and is uploaded to a website (cloud server of modified system) where it can be translated into or conformed to a neutral schema (a first sound effect configuration file is generated based on the sound effect parameters) and stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the server creation of neutral schema files of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0004], such neutral schema benefit users in allowing effects to be shared between formally non-compatible applications.
Regarding claim 24, modified Snibbe teaches the device of claim 23 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 24 are substantially similar to those of claim 14 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 25, Snibbe teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories are coupled to the one or more processors, (see abstract), the one or more memories are configured to store computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and when the one or more processors execute the computer instructions, the electronic device is enabled to perform:
. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0116], and corresponding Fig. 5A, a feed of media items may be displayed which have been generated by users in a community and selectable through touch selection 522
. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0119], and corresponding Fig. 5B, the selected media content is played;;
obtaining target audio by performing sound effect processing on original audio based on the first sound effect configuration file. As Snibbe teaches in paragraphs [0121] and [0123], and corresponding Figs. 5C and 5E, upon the user selecting the “remix” control (530 of Fig. 5C), the user is presented with options to edit the selected media item, including an option to modify audio effects 562. As Snibbe further shows in Fig. 5E, an option for adding an audio track 566 is presented. Therefore, the user may receive an audio effect media item and “remix” the item by adding a selected audio track (original audio). Further see paragraph [0125], “remix mode”; and
playing, by the second electronic device, the target audio. As Snibbe teaches in paragraph [0126], and corresponding Fig. 5F, a preview of the modified media item is played.
However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the requests and responses being sent from and to the cloud server. In a similar field of endeavor, Sims teaches of a method of sharing presets (effects) for digital media (see abstract). As Sims further shows in Fig. 3, effect designers 310 upload/download the presets from a web interface 340. Sims shows in Fig. 2 that the interface is a server computer 208.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the web based transactions of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Snibbe directly teaches of the use of webpages in paragraph [0032] and would therefore require such transactions for the webpages to be usable. Sims further teaches in paragraph [0081] that the method may be applicable to digital sound files, i.e., sound effects.
Furthermore, while Snibbe teaches of a cloud server, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of the server generating a configuration filed based on the parameters. Sims further teaches the following:
generating, by the cloud server, a first sound effect configuration file based on the first sound effect parameter. Sims teaches in paragraph [0040] that at step 420, that a host plug-in creates a set of data including parameters and other inputs in a common XML (sound effect parameters of the modified system) and is uploaded to a website (cloud server of modified system) where it can be translated into or conformed to a neutral schema (a first sound effect configuration file is generated based on the sound effect parameters) and stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the server creation of neutral schema files of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0004], such neutral schema benefit users in allowing effects to be shared between formally non-compatible applications.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, modified Snibbe teaches the device of claim 25 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 26 and 27 are substantially similar to those of claims 15 and 16 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snibbe in view of Sims as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Vestergaard et al. (US 2002/0146122), hereinafter Vestergaard
Regarding claim 19, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of an effect plug-in. Sims teaches the following:
the method further comprises:
when the first electronic device receives the first sound effect parameter entered by the user on the sound effect production web page, receiving, by the first electronic device, a first sound effect algorithm identifier entered by the user on the sound effect production web page, wherein the first sound effect algorithm identifier is an identifier of a first sound effect algorithm plug-in corresponding to the first sound effect parameter, and the first sound effect parameter comprises the identifier of the first sound effect algorithm plug-in. As Sims teaches in paragraph [0042], an original schema (plug-in) utilized to create a preset is determined and therefore received by the server. Sims further teaches in paragraph [0056], and corresponding Fig. 7, that upon a request for a preset, a requesting schema may be compared to an original schema of a preset, therefore, the schema (identification of plug-in used to create preset) is preserved on the server. Further see paragraph [0057], “the preset may have been in the original schema”. As the creating user selects a preset to create the media with, this is interpreted as the user “entering an identifier” of the plug-in.
after the cloud server receives the download request for the first sound effect configuration file, . As Sims teaches in paragraph [0033], various applications and plug-ins may be utilized by creators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the plug-in modifications of Sims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Sims teaches in paragraph [0002], such modifications benefit users when different plug-ins are utilized to create and play back a file.
Furthermore, Snibbe in view of Sims does not explicitly teach of obtaining the identified plug-in. Vestergaard teaches in paragraph [0048], that an integral view or player (plug-in) may be included with downloaded content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the plug-ins of Snibbe in view of Sims with the downloading of necessary players of Vestergaard. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Vestergaard teaches in paragraph [0049], such integration benefits users in ease of use without requiring the separate download of content and player.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snibbe in view of Sims as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fosnacht et al. (US 2009/0271283), hereinafter Fosnacht.
Regarding claim 21, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of sharing requests related to topics. In a similar field of endeavor, Fosnacht teaches of a method of sharing media items among users (see abstract). Fosnacht further teaches the following:
after the cloud server generates the first sound effect configuration file based on the first sound effect parameter, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a fifth input of the user for sharing the first sound effect configuration file to a sound effect topic circle. As Fosnacht teaches in paragraph [0157], and corresponding Fig. 10, a community may be established (a specific topic such as sound effects) and content may be shared with said community. Fosnacht further shows on Fig. 11 a “Share” control for uploading content;
sending, by the first electronic device in response to the fifth input, a sharing request to the cloud server, wherein the sharing request comprises a first topic name and first description content that are entered by the user. As Fosnacht shows in Fig. 41, and corresponding paragraph [0349], an upload interface allows a user to select a file 4114, attach the upload to a group 4106 (topic name), and enter a description 4108;
generating, by the cloud server, a first topic post based on the first topic name, the first description content, and a download link of the first sound effect configuration file. As Fosnacht shows in Fig. 6, posts include thumbnails and description, whereupon selection of the thumbnail causes the interface to transition to Fig. 7 where a purchase control 744 guides the user through a download process (download link);
receiving, by the second electronic device, a sixth input of the user for the first topic name. As Fosnacht shows in Fig. 26, groups may be selected for viewing;
sending, by the second electronic device in response to the sixth input, a first topic request to the cloud server. As Fosnacht shows in Fig. 27, and corresponding paragraph [0270], selection of a group leads to a group sign in page;
sending, by the cloud server to the second electronic device in response to the first topic request, one or more topic posts associated with a first topic, wherein the one or more topic tweets associated with the first topic comprise the first topic tweet; and displaying, by the second electronic device, the first topic post. A Fosnacht shows in Fig. 28A, and corresponding paragraph [0279], a group page may include various modules which may include the shared content. Further see paragraph [0074] where a third-party server includes “Twitter”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the social media site of Fosnacht. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Fosnacht teaches in paragraphs [0002 – [0005], social media sites have become a popular way of sharing content.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snibbe in view of Sims in view of Fosnacht as applied to claims 13 and 21 above, and further in view of Burnette et al. (US 2013/0117349), hereinafter Burnette.
Regarding claim 22, modified Snibbe teaches the method of claim 21 as described above. However, Snibbe does not explicitly teach of statistics on an evaluation. Fosnacht teaches the following:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the second electronic device, evaluation information of the user for the first topic post. As Fosnacht teaches in paragraph [0234], and corresponding Fig. 20, a toolbar 1906 allows a consuming user to rate a piece of media on a scale;
sending, by the second electronic device, the evaluation information of the first topic post to the cloud server. As Fosnacht teaches in paragraph [0234], once selected, the rating is recorded in the database;
collecting, by the cloud server, statistics on an evaluation degree of the first sound effect configuration file based on evaluation information that is of the first topic post and that is sent by a plurality of devices, wherein the plurality of devices comprise the second electronic device. As Fosnacht shows in Fig. 18, and paragraph [0223], the system shows an average rating (statistics) of a media item;
determining, by the cloud server, a recommendation degree of the first sound effect configuration file based on the evaluation degree of the first sound effect configuration file. As Fosnacht teaches in paragraph [0126], media items may be sorted by “most popular”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe with the media ratings of Fosnacht. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because ratings benefit users in finding media which other users ‘recommend”.
Furthermore, Snibbe in view of Fosnacht does not explicitly teach of pushing a media items. Burnette teaches the following:
pushing, by the cloud server, the first sound effect configuration file to a playing client device based on the recommendation degree of the first sound effect configuration file. As Burnette shows in Fig. 5, popularity for media is monitored 504 and utilized to determine whether to “pre-position” the file to a device (push).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the effect publishing and requesting of Snibbe in view of Fosnacht with the file pushing of Burnette. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Burnette teaches in paragraph [0006], such pushing benefits users in a better experience as compared to on-demand streaming.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snibbe et al. (US 2015/0221339), See Figs. 4E and 4G
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights