DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first communication module configured to receive” as recited in claim 1;
“second communication module configured to communicate” as recited in claim 1;
“content streaming device,” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19 (corresponding to, e.g., a smartphone, vehicle head unit, or the like: see [0078]);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to an apparatus composed of various elements, at least some of which are claimed not in terms of their structures, but in terms of their functions. Such an approach is explicitly permitted by 35 USC 112(f), which states:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing this claiming technique is that the corresponding structure for each such element must be clearly linked or associated to the function recited, so that the element may be construed in the manner specified by the statute. When a clear link or association is not present, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim containing the element, and the claim therefore fails to satisfy the requirement of 35 USC 112(b) that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See MPEP 2181.
The following claim elements are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because a skilled artisan would conclude that they are so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming (for example, by using “means” or a nonce term that is not an art-recognized name of a structure of class of structures in conjunction with functional language):
“first communication module configured to receive” as recited in claim 1;
“second communication module configured to communicate” as recited in claim 1;
However, for each element listed above, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or act performs the claimed function. The specification mentions the modules at paragraph [0134] and elsewhere, but does not clearly link each of the claimed functions to a specific corresponding structure, such as an algorithm in connection with a general-purpose processor.
Consequently, each claim containing an element listed above fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. For the purposes of this action, the elements listed above will be construed to encompass electronic circuitry, or a combination of electronic circuitry and software, configured to perform the respective functions.
For each claim and each limitation listed above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: Applicant is respectfully reminded that a trivial amendment (such as replacing the word “module” with an equally non-structural term such as “unit”) would not be sufficient to prevent the claims from being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore, for a computer-implemented invention, examples of “corresponding structure” include a specific arrangement of circuitry or a specific algorithm running on a general-purpose processor. Merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “bank computer”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., an “access control manager”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. See MPEP 2181.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the instant claims have been interpreted as “machines” at least in part because of the invocations of 35 USC 112(f) described above. Should applicant choose to amend the claims so that they no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f), the examiner recommends ensuring the claims include an explicit recitation of computer hardware (such as “a microprocessor and memory”), so as to forestall a rejection under 35 USC 101.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez shows a content streaming device implemented to seamlessly stream content being streamed from a second content streaming device (see [0052] and [0056]-[0058]), the device comprising:
a first communication module configured to receive first metadata for the content being streamed by the second content streaming device (the necessary module which receives state information indicating server, content, and playback position: see [0056]-[0057], [0061], and [0075]);
a second communication module configured to communicate with a content providing server (the necessary module which can request and receive content corresponding to the state information, from a content provider server: see [0056] and [0075]-[0076]); and
a processor configured to request content corresponding to the first metadata from the content providing server and, in response to receiving content from the content providing server in response to the request, stream the received content (see [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the processor is configured to receive the content from a single content providing server and stream the received content (see [0056]-[0057], [0075]-[0076], where the state information indicates the content server from which to resume the stream).
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows wherein the single content providing server is identical to or different from a server providing the content to the second content streaming device (e.g., identical to, where the state information indicates the “particular content server”: see [0056]-[0057] and [0064]; note, too, that all servers are identical to or different from a given server).
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez shows a method for seamlessly streaming content streamed from a first content streaming device on a second content streaming device (see [0052] and [0058]), the method comprising:
providing first metadata for the content being streamed by the first content streaming device to the second content streaming device (state information indicating server, content, and playback position: see [0056]-[0057], [0061], and [0075]);
requesting, at the second content streaming device, content corresponding to the first metadata from a content providing server (request and receive content corresponding to the state information, from a content provider server: see [0056] and [0075]-[0076]); and
in response to the second content streaming device receiving the content from the content providing server in response to the request, streaming the received content (see [0075]-[0076]).
Claims 11 and 12 correspond to claims 2 and 3 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 19, Alvarez shows a system for providing seamless content streaming service between different devices, the system comprising:
a content providing server (e.g., content server 120: see Fig. 1 and [0031]);
a first content streaming device configured to stream content provided by the content providing server (a media device 306A: see Fig. 3A and [0047]); and
a second content streaming device (e.g., media device 306B: see Fig. 3A and [0047]), wherein the second content streaming device is configured to receive first metadata for the content being streamed by the first content streaming device (state information indicating server, content, and playback position: see [0056]-[0057], [0061], and [0075]), request content corresponding to the first metadata from the content providing server (see [0056] and [0075]-[0076]), and, in response to receiving the content from the content providing server in response to the request, stream the received content (see [0075]-[0076]).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Bodilis (US Pub. No. 2018/0227342).
Regarding claim 4, Alvarez does not explicitly show wherein, in response to receiving contents from multiple content providing servers, the processor is configured to stream the content that is selected based on preset priorities.
Bodilis shows wherein, in response to receiving contents from multiple content providing servers, the processor is configured to stream the content that is selected based on preset priorities (see [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Bodilis in order to allow the user to more easily manage streams that are being provided by multiple sources.
Regarding claim 5, the combination further shows wherein the multiple content providing servers include or exclude a server providing the content to the second content streaming device (e.g., at least including the content server: see Alvarez, [0056]-[0057], [0075]-[0076]).
Claims 13 and 14 correspond to claims 4 and 5 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Bodilis (US Pub. No. 2018/0227342), and further in view of Govind (US Pub. No. 2013/0226888).
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not explicitly show wherein the processor is configured to compare the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content from the multiple content providing servers and stream the content that is matched with the second metadata that is identical to the first metadata.
Govind shows wherein the processor is configured to compare the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content and stream the content that is matched with the second metadata that is identical to the first metadata (see [0039]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Govind in order to allow the user to content more quickly while ensuring that the content is up-to-date.
Regarding claim 7, the combination further shows wherein, in a case in which the second metadata is not identical to the first metadata, the processor is configured to stream the content received first (see Govind [0041], and note that the device streams content received first by a nearby client device).
Claims 15 and 16 correspond to claims 6 and 7 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Govind (US Pub. No. 2013/0226888).
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not explicitly show wherein, in response to failing to receive the content from the content providing server, the processor is configured to search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in an internal memory and, in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, stream the content from the internal memory.
Govind shows in response to failing to receive the content from the content providing server, the processor is configured to search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in an internal memory and, in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, stream the content from the internal memory (see [0039]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Govind in order to allow the user to content more quickly while ensuring that the content is up-to-date.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further shows wherein, in response to failing to identify the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, the processor is configured to: determine whether an external memory is attached; in response to a determination that the external memory is attached, search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in the external memory; and in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the external memory, stream the content from the external memory (e.g., the external memory being a memory of another client system: see Govind, [0039]-[0041], as combined above).
Claims 17 and 18 correspond to claims 8 and 9 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Jamal-Syed (US Pat. No. 10,291,672).
Regarding claim 20, Alvarez does not explicitly show wherein the first content streaming device comprises a portable electronic device and the second content streaming device comprises a content delivery device installed in a vehicle.
Jamal-Syed shows where a first content streaming device comprises a portable electronic device and a second content streaming device comprises a content delivery device installed in a vehicle (e.g., a mobile device and the necessary device installed in a vehicle that plays back content: see col. 2, lines 8-18 and col. 4, lines 42-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Jamal-Syed in order to allow the user to continue to experience their desired media while travelling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, note the following prior art documents:
US Pat. No. 11,321,046 to Triplett describes transferring audio playback between networked devices.
US Pub. No. 20200221155 to Hansen describes transferring audio playback between devices.
US Pub. No. 2023/0406236 to Carrigan describes managing media playback.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights