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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(b) and prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“content being streamed,”
“content corresponding to the first metadata,
“receiving the content…or receiving contents”
“in response to receiving content…streaming the received content”,
“in response to receiving the contents…selecting content from the received contents;”
“the contents from the multiple content providing servers,”
“the contents,” and
“the selected content.”
Each of the references to “the content” or “the contents” may be reasonably interpreted to numerous prior introductions of content or contents. Some references may be narrowed down based on context, but the cumulative effect of these ambiguities is to make it impossible to understand the metes and bounds of the claim, and which of the various “contents” must be the same as others of the various “contents”. Claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations and are similarly deficient.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
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 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Barton (US Pub. No. 2023/0379512).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez shows:
a processor (at least implicitly disclosed as a necessary component of a computer-implemented system); and
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (at least implicitly disclosed as a necessary component of a computer-implemented system) comprising:
receiving, from a content streaming device, first metadata for content being streamed by the content streaming device (state information indicating server, content, and playback position: see [0056]-[0057], [0061], and [0075]);
requesting, from at least one content provider server, content corresponding to the first metadata (requesting and receiving content corresponding to the state information, from a content provider server: see [0056] and [0075]-[0076]);
in response to the request, receiving the content from either a single content providing server or receiving contents from multiple content providing servers (see [0075]-[0076]; see also [0048], describing receiving contents from multiple content provider servers);
in response to receiving content from the single content providing server, streaming the received content (see [0075]-[0076]).
Alvarez does not explicitly show in response to receiving the contents from the multiple content providing servers, selecting content from the received contents based on (i) whether the first metadata is identical to second metadata received along with the contents from the multiple content providing servers and (ii) a reception order of the contents, and streaming the selected content.
Barton shows in response to receiving contents from multiple content providing servers (e.g., media content items, corresponding advertisements, and URLs for each: see [0039]-[0041] and [0045]), selecting content from the received contents based on (i) whether first metadata is identical to second metadata received along with the contents from the multiple content providing servers (e.g., selecting a media content item and/or corresponding advertisements based on whether they match the user's selection: see [0041] and [0045]) and (ii) a reception order of the contents (e.g., based on URLs or contents having been received earlier: see [0041], [0045], [0046]), and streaming the selected content (see [0039] and [0045]).
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 Barton in order to allow the user to view content that is stored in multiple physical or logical locations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination 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 Alvarez, [0056]-[0057], [0075]-[0076], where the state information indicates the content server from which to resume the stream).
Regarding claim 3, the combination 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 Alvarez, [0056]-[0057] and [0064]; note, too, that all servers are identical to or different from a given server).
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 10-12 and 14 correspond to claims 1-3 and 5 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 21, the combination further shows wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a user input, through a user interface of the device, that selects a streaming mode from a plurality of streaming modes, and wherein the request for content corresponding to the first metadata is based on the selected streaming mode (e.g., selecting a mode in which a particular content item is displayed, as opposed to a different mode in which a different content item is displayed: see Barton, [0039]-[0045], as combined above).
Claim 22 corresponds to claim 21 and is rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Barton (US Pub. No. 2023/0379512) and further in view of Govind (US Pub. No. 2013/0226888).
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not explicitly show wherein the operations comprise comparing the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content from the multiple content providing servers and streaming the content that corresponds to the second metadata that is identical to the first metadata.
Govind shows wherein a processor is configured to compare the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content and stream content that corresponds to 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 response to determining that the second metadata is not identical to the first metadata, streaming the content received first (see Govind [0041], and note that the device streams content received first by a nearby client device).
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 15-18 correspond to claims 6-9 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 Barton (US Pub. No. 2023/0379512) and further in view of Govind (US Pub. No. 2013/0226888).
Regarding claim 20, the combination 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
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 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