The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claims 2-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,093,606, in view of Rappoport (US 2017/0019742).
The patent claims disclose each and every limitation of the application claims, except that the patent claims do not specifically claim that the first playback device includes one or more audio transducers and a communication interface as claimed. Rappoport discloses a playback device (fig. 2) including one or more audio transducers 212 and a communication interface 214, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of playing back audio content via the one or more audio transducers 212 and communicating with a second playback device via the communication interface 214. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the patent claims, in view of Rappoport, such that the first playback device includes one or more audio transducers and a communication interface as claimed. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of playing back the audio content via the one or more audio transducers and communicating with the second playback device via the communication interface as claimed.
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 2-14 would be allowable if a Terminal Disclaimer is timely filed as explained above.
Claims 15-21 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 were each cited by the examiner in the parent application 18/498,578.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record considered as a whole fails to teach or suggest either: 1) a first playback device comprising: one or more audio transducers; a communication interface; one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the first playback device to: detect, via the communication interface, availability to communicate with a second playback device with which the first playback device was previously joined in a bonded group; identify a cause of the first playback device leaving the bonded group; determine, based on the cause for leaving the bonded group, whether to re-join the bonded group with the second playback device; and when it is determined, based on the cause for leaving the bonded group, that the first playback device is to re-join the bonded group with the second playback device, re-join the bonded group and play back, via the one or more audio transducers, audio content in synchrony with playback of the audio content by the second playback device; or
2) a method for a first playback device, the method comprising: detecting, with the first playback device, availability to communicate with a second playback device with which the first playback device was previously joined in a bonded group; identifying, by the first playback device, a cause for leaving the bonded group; determining, by the first playback device, that the cause for leaving the bonded group warrants automatic re-joining of the first playback device to the bonded group; re-joining, by the first playback device, the bonded group with the second playback device; and playing back, by the first playback device, audio content in synchrony with playback of the audio content by the second playback device; or
3) a first playback device comprising: one or more audio transducers; a communication interface; one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the first playback device to: play back, via the one or more audio transducers, one or more audio channels of audio content in synchrony with playback of at least one audio channel of the audio content by a second playback device while the first and second playback devices are joined together in a bonded group; leave the bonded group; record, in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, a cause for leaving the bonded group; and after leaving the bonded group, (i) detect, via the communication interface, availability to communicate with the second playback device, (ii) identify the cause for leaving the bonded group, (iii) after detecting the availability to communicate with the second playback device, determine that the cause for leaving the bonded group warrants automatic re-joining of the first playback device to the bonded group, and (iv) determine whether to re-join the bonded group with the second playback device based on a playback status of at least one of the first playback device or the second playback device. (bold/underlined language emphasized)
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
March 13, 2026