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 .
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,121 in view of Munoz et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0028816). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
Instant Application No. 15/175,911.
Claim 1. A computing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to facilitate communication via at least one data network; at least one processor; and
at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to:
following (i) access, via a link, by a second user to a playback queue associated with a first user and that is associated with a streaming audio service, and (ii) reception, from a device associated with the second user, an indication of a selection of one or more audio tracks for addition to the playback queue:
add the selected one or more audio tracks to the playback queue; and associate an indication with the selected one or more audio tracks, the indication indicating the second user, wherein the indication is displayable on a device associated with the first user and the device associated with the second user, wherein one or more audio tracks specified in the playback queue are configured to be streamed to one or more playback devices for playback on the one or more playback devices.
US Patent No. 12,112,121.
Claim 1. A computing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to facilitate communication via at least one data network; at least one processor; and
at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to:
after receipt of an indication that a link that facilitates access to a playback queue associated with a first user and that is associated with a streaming audio service has been accessed by a second user of one or more other users that can access the link, cause transmission of one or more identifiers associated with the playback queue for display on a device associated with the second user;
receive, from the device associated with the second user, an indication of a selection of one or more audio tracks, wherein the device associated with the second user is configured to present one or more user interface controls that facilitate adding audio tracks from a media library to the playback queue;
add the one or more audio tracks selected to the playback queue; and associate a graphical indication with the one or more audio tracks, the graphical indication indicating the second user, wherein the one or more identifiers associated with the playback queue and the graphical indication are displayable on a device associated with the first user and the device associated with the second user, wherein one or more audio tracks specified in the playback queue are configured to be streamed to one or more playback devices for playback on the one or more playback devices.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the reference patent except “receive, from the device associated with the second user, an indication of a selection of one or more audio tracks, wherein the device associated with the second user is configured to present one or more user interface controls that facilitate adding audio tracks from a media library to the playback queue..” However, Munoz teaches the link may be configured such that tracking data may be sent to the particular resource when the link is accessed. The particular resource may use the tracking data to identify the number of users accessing the URL. Additionally or alternatively, the particular resource may limit the number of users that may access the URL and use the tracking data to determine whether a predefined threshold has been met. If the threshold has been met, the particular resource may prevent further access to the set of media items; [Munoz; para 0113].
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the link may be configured such that tracking data may be sent to the particular resource when the link is accessed. The particular resource may use the tracking data to identify the number of users accessing the URL. Additionally or alternatively, the particular resource may limit the number of users that may access the URL and use the tracking data to determine whether a predefined threshold has been met. If the threshold has been met, the particular resource may prevent further access to the set of media items; as disclosed in Munoz, within the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, access, via a link, by a second user to a playback queue associated with a first user and that is associated with a streaming audio service, and (ii) reception, from a device associated with the second user, an indication of a selection of one or more audio tracks for addition to the playback queue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Kumar (US Patent 9,735,978) discloses playback queue control via a playlist on a mobile device.
Triplett (US Patent 9,247,363) discloses playback queue transfer in a media playback system.
Alsina (US Patent 2014/0282755) discloses media playback across multiple device.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAO H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights