DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communications filed 10/23/2024, claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oliver et al, US Publication No. 2013/0191454 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Oliver et al teaches, A system comprising: a network interface (FIG. 11, Communication Interface 1102); at least one processor (FIG. 11, Processor 1104); and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor (FIG. 11, Storage Device 1106, Paragraph 106, “In certain embodiments, one or more of the processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non- transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices. In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.)”) such that the system is configured to: maintain in data storage of a computing device at least one first index comprising metadata of local audio tracks stored on one or more first network devices connected to a local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, Paragraph 55, “For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”), wherein the computing device is connected to the local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, LAN 106);
receive an input representing a command to perform a search for audio tracks corresponding to a search string (Paragraph 86, “The tools may allow a moderator who creates a playlist to define one or more parameters that may be used by a moderator device to automatically populate a playlist based on the parameters and on attributes of songs associated with event attendees (e.g., songs included in personal music libraries of event attendees). For example, a moderator may define a vibe parameter of a playlist to specify that the vibe of the playlist is to be a "west coast 1990's gangster rap" vibe. Thereafter, the moderator device may search for available songs that match this vibe and automatically add any such songs to the playlist for playback at an event.”); search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string (Above citation of paragraph 86, and Paragraph 55, “Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”); cause, via the network interface, a controller device to display first graphical representations of first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 113, “I/O module 1108 may include one or more devices for presenting output to a user, including, but not limited to, a graphics engine, a display (e.g., a display screen, one or more output drivers (e.g., display drivers), one or more audio speakers, and one or more audio drivers. In certain embodiments, I/O module 1108 is configured to provide graphical data to a display for presentation to a user. The graphical data may be representative of one or more graphical user interfaces and/or any other graphical content as may serve a particular implementation.”, as described above, the moderator device is able to communicate with a moderator to interface with the device to control the playlist, and populate the playlist for the event.);
search, via the network interface, at least one second index for second search results corresponding to the search string, wherein the at least one second index comprise identifiers of additional audio tracks stored on one or more second network devices outside of the local area network (Paragraph 55, “In certain additional or alternative examples, moderator device 404 may use other access rights to access and play back a song added to playlist 408. For example, a song included in a music library associated with participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 may be selected and added to playlist 408. Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match. If a match is found, moderator device 404 may use access rights of moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to access the song from the music streaming service and/or from the music library of moderator device 404, without having to leverage the access rights of participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 to access the song.”);
and cause, via the network interface, the controller device to display second graphical representations of second audio tracks in the second search results concurrently with the first graphical representations of the first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 56, “Returning to FIG. 5, participant devices 502 and/or participants 504 may collaborate with moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs for playback at the event hosted at event premises 104. For example, participants 504 may utilize participant devices 502 to transmit requests to add specific songs to which participants 504 and/or participant devices 502 have access rights to playlist 408, as described above. Moderator 410 may have ultimate control over which requested songs are added to playlist 410. Additionally, moderator 410 may utilize moderator device 404 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs to which moderator 410 and/or moderator device 404 have access rights. Accordingly, moderator 410 and participants 504 may collaborate to populate playlist 408 with songs from different personal digital music libraries 110 associated with different event attendees.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the computing device comprises the network interface and the at least one processor (FIG. 11, Computing Device 1100, communication interface 1102, processor 1104).
Regarding Claim 3, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: receive, via a graphical user interface, selection of particular audio tracks from among the first search results and the second search results (Paragraph 38, “Moderator 410 may utilize a user interface provided by moderator device 404 to define one or more parameters for playlist 408, which parameters may be used by moderator device 404 to selectively choose songs to add and/or not to add to playlist 408 and/or to control participants in playlist 408. Examples of such parameters may include a playlist vibe (e.g., a "techno dance" vibe, a "romantic" vibe, a "sophisticated" vibe, a "1990's gangster rap" vibe, etc.), a playlist tempo (e.g., an "upbeat," "rhythmic," or "slow" tempo), a playlist mood (e.g., a "happy," "carefree," or "intense" mood), a music genre (or set of genres), a music artist (or set of artists), a song lyric (e.g., a certain word and/or other lyric included in a song), user and/or device identifiers for users and/or devices allowed and/or blocked from participating in playlist 408, and/or any other parameters that may be used to select songs for a playlist based on one or more attributes of the songs and/or to control playlist participants.”); and cause, via the network interface, one or more playback devices to play back a playlist including the particular audio tracks (FIG. 9, Steps 906 and 908, Add the song to the collaborative event playlist, Access and play the song at the event premises in accordance with the collaborative event playlist).
Regarding Claim 4, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to receive the input representing the command to perform the search for audio tracks corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: display, via the controller device, a search control on the graphical user interface; and receive, via the graphical user interface, input data representing the search string (Paragraph 38, “Moderator 410 may utilize a user interface provided by moderator device 404 to define one or more parameters for playlist 408, which parameters may be used by moderator device 404 to selectively choose songs to add and/or not to add to playlist 408 and/or to control participants in playlist 408.”, Paragraph 86, “The tools may allow a moderator who creates a playlist to define one or more parameters that may be used by a moderator device to automatically populate a playlist based on the parameters and on attributes of songs associated with event attendees (e.g., songs included in personal music libraries of event attendees). For example, a moderator may define a vibe parameter of a playlist to specify that the vibe of the playlist is to be a "west coast 1990's gangster rap" vibe. Thereafter, the moderator device may search for available songs that match this vibe and automatically add any such songs to the playlist for playback at an event.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: receive, via the network interface, a command representing a selection of particular audio tracks from among the first search results and the second search results; and cause, via the network interface, one or more playback devices to play back a playlist including the particular audio tracks (Paragraph 104, “One or more steps of the method 1000 may be repeated by the moderator device to collaboratively add one or more additional songs to the collaborative event playlist for access and playback at the event. For example, steps 1004-1008 may be repeated by the moderator device to add an additional song to the collaborative event playlist, and to access and play the additional song at the event premises in accordance with the collaborative event playlist.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: cause a first playback device and a second playback device to play back the playlist in synchrony (Paragraph 36, “An exemplary implementation and operation of system 100 will now be described. User 108-1 of media device 102-1 may want to host a collaborative event playlist of songs for playback at an event at event premises 104. To this end, media device 102-1 may include or be communicatively coupled to one or more audio speakers and/or other audio equipment such that the playlist of songs may be played at event premises 104.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the at least one second index comprises first identifiers of first audio tracks streamable from at least one first server of a first streaming audio service and second identifiers of second audio tracks streamable from at least one second server of a second streaming audio service (Paragraph 25, “Each media device 102 may access the music library 110 of the user 108 associated with the media device 102 in any suitable way and/or from any suitable source. For example, while FIG. 1 shows each media device 102 locally storing the music library 110 of the user 108 associated with the media device 102 such that the music library 110 may be locally accessed by the media device 102, alternatively or additionally, a media device 102 may be configured to access the associated user's 108 music library 110 from a remote source, such as over a wide area network (e.g., the Internet, a satellite media broadcast network (e.g., an XM radio network), etc.)) from a server device associated with a cloud-based media management service and/or media content service provided by a service provider. For example, a user 108 may use a hosted online media management service to store, access, and/or otherwise manage media content (e.g., a music library 110) to which the user 108 has access rights. As another example, a user 108 may subscribe to a service through which the user 108 may access (e.g., stream) media content that is made available by a media content service provider by way of the service.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Oliver et al teaches, a computing device comprising: a network interface (FIG. 11, Communication Interface 1102); at least one processor (FIG. 11, Processor 1104); and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor (FIG. 11, Storage Device 1106, Paragraph 106, “In certain embodiments, one or more of the processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non- transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices. In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.)”) such that the computing device is configured to: maintain in data storage of a computing device at least one first index comprising metadata of local audio tracks stored on one or more first network devices connected to a local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, Paragraph 55, “For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”), wherein the computing device is connected to the local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, LAN 106);
receive an input representing a command to perform a search for audio tracks corresponding to a search string (Paragraph 86, “The tools may allow a moderator who creates a playlist to define one or more parameters that may be used by a moderator device to automatically populate a playlist based on the parameters and on attributes of songs associated with event attendees (e.g., songs included in personal music libraries of event attendees). For example, a moderator may define a vibe parameter of a playlist to specify that the vibe of the playlist is to be a "west coast 1990's gangster rap" vibe. Thereafter, the moderator device may search for available songs that match this vibe and automatically add any such songs to the playlist for playback at an event.”); search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string (Above citation of paragraph 86, and Paragraph 55, “Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”); cause, via the network interface, a controller device to display first graphical representations of first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 113, “I/O module 1108 may include one or more devices for presenting output to a user, including, but not limited to, a graphics engine, a display (e.g., a display screen, one or more output drivers (e.g., display drivers), one or more audio speakers, and one or more audio drivers. In certain embodiments, I/O module 1108 is configured to provide graphical data to a display for presentation to a user. The graphical data may be representative of one or more graphical user interfaces and/or any other graphical content as may serve a particular implementation.”, as described above, the moderator device is able to communicate with a moderator to interface with the device to control the playlist, and populate the playlist for the event.);
search, via the network interface, at least one second index for second search results corresponding to the search string, wherein the at least one second index comprise identifiers of additional audio tracks stored on one or more second network devices outside of the local area network (Paragraph 55, “In certain additional or alternative examples, moderator device 404 may use other access rights to access and play back a song added to playlist 408. For example, a song included in a music library associated with participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 may be selected and added to playlist 408. Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match. If a match is found, moderator device 404 may use access rights of moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to access the song from the music streaming service and/or from the music library of moderator device 404, without having to leverage the access rights of participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 to access the song.”);
and cause, via the network interface, the controller device to display second graphical representations of second audio tracks in the second search results concurrently with the first graphical representations of the first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 56, “Returning to FIG. 5, participant devices 502 and/or participants 504 may collaborate with moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs for playback at the event hosted at event premises 104. For example, participants 504 may utilize participant devices 502 to transmit requests to add specific songs to which participants 504 and/or participant devices 502 have access rights to playlist 408, as described above. Moderator 410 may have ultimate control over which requested songs are added to playlist 410. Additionally, moderator 410 may utilize moderator device 404 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs to which moderator 410 and/or moderator device 404 have access rights. Accordingly, moderator 410 and participants 504 may collaborate to populate playlist 408 with songs from different personal digital music libraries 110 associated with different event attendees.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: receive, via the network interface, a command representing a selection of particular audio tracks from among the first search results and the second search results; and cause, via the network interface, one or more playback devices to play back a playlist including the particular audio tracks (Paragraph 104, “One or more steps of the method 1000 may be repeated by the moderator device to collaboratively add one or more additional songs to the collaborative event playlist for access and playback at the event. For example, steps 1004-1008 may be repeated by the moderator device to add an additional song to the collaborative event playlist, and to access and play the additional song at the event premises in accordance with the collaborative event playlist.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: cause a first playback device and a second playback device to play back the playlist in synchrony (Paragraph 36, “An exemplary implementation and operation of system 100 will now be described. User 108-1 of media device 102-1 may want to host a collaborative event playlist of songs for playback at an event at event premises 104. To this end, media device 102-1 may include or be communicatively coupled to one or more audio speakers and/or other audio equipment such that the playlist of songs may be played at event premises 104.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches, wherein the at least one second index comprises first identifiers of first audio tracks streamable from at least one first server of a first streaming audio service and second identifiers of second audio tracks streamable from at least one second server of a second streaming audio service (Paragraph 25, “Each media device 102 may access the music library 110 of the user 108 associated with the media device 102 in any suitable way and/or from any suitable source. For example, while FIG. 1 shows each media device 102 locally storing the music library 110 of the user 108 associated with the media device 102 such that the music library 110 may be locally accessed by the media device 102, alternatively or additionally, a media device 102 may be configured to access the associated user's 108 music library 110 from a remote source, such as over a wide area network (e.g., the Internet, a satellite media broadcast network (e.g., an XM radio network), etc.)) from a server device associated with a cloud-based media management service and/or media content service provided by a service provider. For example, a user 108 may use a hosted online media management service to store, access, and/or otherwise manage media content (e.g., a music library 110) to which the user 108 has access rights. As another example, a user 108 may subscribe to a service through which the user 108 may access (e.g., stream) media content that is made available by a media content service provider by way of the service.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Oliver et al teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by at least one processor (FIG. 11, Communication Interface 1102, Processor 1104, Storage Device 1106, Paragraph 106, “In certain embodiments, one or more of the processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non- transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices. In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.)”) such that a system is configured to: maintain in data storage of a computing device at least one first index comprising metadata of local audio tracks stored on one or more first network devices connected to a local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, Paragraph 55, “For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”), wherein the computing device is connected to the local area network (FIG. 4, Moderator Device 404, LAN 106);
receive an input representing a command to perform a search for audio tracks corresponding to a search string (Paragraph 86, “The tools may allow a moderator who creates a playlist to define one or more parameters that may be used by a moderator device to automatically populate a playlist based on the parameters and on attributes of songs associated with event attendees (e.g., songs included in personal music libraries of event attendees). For example, a moderator may define a vibe parameter of a playlist to specify that the vibe of the playlist is to be a "west coast 1990's gangster rap" vibe. Thereafter, the moderator device may search for available songs that match this vibe and automatically add any such songs to the playlist for playback at an event.”); search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string (Above citation of paragraph 86, and Paragraph 55, “Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match.”); cause, via a network interface, a controller device to display first graphical representations of first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 113, “I/O module 1108 may include one or more devices for presenting output to a user, including, but not limited to, a graphics engine, a display (e.g., a display screen, one or more output drivers (e.g., display drivers), one or more audio speakers, and one or more audio drivers. In certain embodiments, I/O module 1108 is configured to provide graphical data to a display for presentation to a user. The graphical data may be representative of one or more graphical user interfaces and/or any other graphical content as may serve a particular implementation.”, as described above, the moderator device is able to communicate with a moderator to interface with the device to control the playlist, and populate the playlist for the event.);
search, via the network interface, at least one second index for second search results corresponding to the search string, wherein the at least one second index comprise identifiers of additional audio tracks stored on one or more second network devices outside of the local area network (Paragraph 55, “In certain additional or alternative examples, moderator device 404 may use other access rights to access and play back a song added to playlist 408. For example, a song included in a music library associated with participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 may be selected and added to playlist 408. Moderator device 404 may use information about the song to determine available options for accessing the song. For example, moderator device 404 may use the title of the song to search a database of a music streaming service and/or to search a music library associated with moderator device 404 (e.g., music stored on moderator device 404 that has not been added to playlist 408) for a match. If a match is found, moderator device 404 may use access rights of moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to access the song from the music streaming service and/or from the music library of moderator device 404, without having to leverage the access rights of participant 504-1 and/or participant device 502-1 to access the song.”);
and cause, via the network interface, the controller device to display second graphical representations of second audio tracks in the second search results concurrently with the first graphical representations of the first audio tracks in the first search results (Paragraph 56, “Returning to FIG. 5, participant devices 502 and/or participants 504 may collaborate with moderator device 404 and/or moderator 410 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs for playback at the event hosted at event premises 104. For example, participants 504 may utilize participant devices 502 to transmit requests to add specific songs to which participants 504 and/or participant devices 502 have access rights to playlist 408, as described above. Moderator 410 may have ultimate control over which requested songs are added to playlist 410. Additionally, moderator 410 may utilize moderator device 404 to populate playlist 408 with one or more songs to which moderator 410 and/or moderator device 404 have access rights. Accordingly, moderator 410 and participants 504 may collaborate to populate playlist 408 with songs from different personal digital music libraries 110 associated with different event attendees.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: receive, via a graphical user interface, selection of particular audio tracks from among the first search results and the second search results (Paragraph 38, “Moderator 410 may utilize a user interface provided by moderator device 404 to define one or more parameters for playlist 408, which parameters may be used by moderator device 404 to selectively choose songs to add and/or not to add to playlist 408 and/or to control participants in playlist 408. Examples of such parameters may include a playlist vibe (e.g., a "techno dance" vibe, a "romantic" vibe, a "sophisticated" vibe, a "1990's gangster rap" vibe, etc.), a playlist tempo (e.g., an "upbeat," "rhythmic," or "slow" tempo), a playlist mood (e.g., a "happy," "carefree," or "intense" mood), a music genre (or set of genres), a music artist (or set of artists), a song lyric (e.g., a certain word and/or other lyric included in a song), user and/or device identifiers for users and/or devices allowed and/or blocked from participating in playlist 408, and/or any other parameters that may be used to select songs for a playlist based on one or more attributes of the songs and/or to control playlist participants.”); and cause, via the network interface, one or more playback devices to play back a playlist including the particular audio tracks (Paragraph 104, “One or more steps of the method 1000 may be repeated by the moderator device to collaboratively add one or more additional songs to the collaborative event playlist for access and playback at the event. For example, steps 1004-1008 may be repeated by the moderator device to add an additional song to the collaborative event playlist, and to access and play the additional song at the event premises in accordance with the collaborative event playlist.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to receive the input representing the command to perform the search for audio tracks corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: display, via the controller device, a search control on the graphical user interface; and receive, via the graphical user interface, input data representing the search string (Paragraph 38, “Moderator 410 may utilize a user interface provided by moderator device 404 to define one or more parameters for playlist 408, which parameters may be used by moderator device 404 to selectively choose songs to add and/or not to add to playlist 408 and/or to control participants in playlist 408.”, Paragraph 86, “The tools may allow a moderator who creates a playlist to define one or more parameters that may be used by a moderator device to automatically populate a playlist based on the parameters and on attributes of songs associated with event attendees (e.g., songs included in personal music libraries of event attendees). For example, a moderator may define a vibe parameter of a playlist to specify that the vibe of the playlist is to be a "west coast 1990's gangster rap" vibe. Thereafter, the moderator device may search for available songs that match this vibe and automatically add any such songs to the playlist for playback at an event.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: receive, via the network interface, a command representing a selection of particular audio tracks from among the first search results and the second search results; and cause, via the network interface, one or more playback devices to play back a playlist including the particular audio tracks (Paragraph 104, “One or more steps of the method 1000 may be repeated by the moderator device to collaboratively add one or more additional songs to the collaborative event playlist for access and playback at the event. For example, steps 1004-1008 may be repeated by the moderator device to add an additional song to the collaborative event playlist, and to access and play the additional song at the event premises in accordance with the collaborative event playlist.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 18, and further teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: cause a first playback device and a second playback device to play back the playlist in synchrony (Paragraph 36, “An exemplary implementation and operation of system 100 will now be described. User 108-1 of media device 102-1 may want to host a collaborative event playlist of songs for playback at an event at event premises 104. To this end, media device 102-1 may include or be communicatively coupled to one or more audio speakers and/or other audio equipment such that the playlist of songs may be played at event premises 104.”).
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 7-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al, US Publication No. 2013/0191454 A1, in view of Garbow et al, US Publication No. 2008/0091717 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data.
However, Garbow et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile (Paragraph 31, “It is also typically desirable to upload playback histories from the DMP's to the master device in connection with generating a collaborative playlist. By doing so, the master device may omit songs to which a particular user has recently listened. Furthermore, it may be desirable to update the playback histories of individual DMP's based upon the play back of songs from a collaborative playlist, such that the users will not hear the same songs repeated when the DMP's are no longer connected to the master device.”), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data (Paragraph 51, “In addition, additional information that may be used to ascertain the user's musical likes and/or dislikes, e.g., playlists and a playback history, may also be uploaded to the master device from the DMP. Control then passes to block 70 to determine whether any more DMP's are awaiting connection to the master device. If so, control passes to block 62 to connect another DMP.”, while utilized in a slightly different embodiment, the system utilizes playback history of users to determine song inclusion within the generated playlist.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile, and search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data, as taught by Garbow et al, with the system as taught by Oliver et al. The motivation being that utilizing playback history to determine priority within searches is known within the art, and further would allow for more relevant search results than when utilizing unweighted results.
Regarding Claim 8, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index.
However, Garbow et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index (FIG. 3, step 100, create master playback history by combining playback histories of master and connected dmp’s, step 102, create master song list by combining songs lists of master and connected dmp’s, step 108, generate collaborative playlist based on master song preferences, de-emphasizing or excluding songs in master playback history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index, as taught by Garbow et al, with the system as taught by Oliver et al. The motivation being that utilizing playback history to determine priority within searches is known within the art, and further would allow for more relevant search results than when utilizing unweighted results.
Regarding Claim 13, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not further teach, wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data.
However, Garbow et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile (Paragraph 31, “It is also typically desirable to upload playback histories from the DMP's to the master device in connection with generating a collaborative playlist. By doing so, the master device may omit songs to which a particular user has recently listened. Furthermore, it may be desirable to update the playback histories of individual DMP's based upon the play back of songs from a collaborative playlist, such that the users will not hear the same songs repeated when the DMP's are no longer connected to the master device.”), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to search the at least one first index for first search results corresponding to the search string comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data (Paragraph 51, “In addition, additional information that may be used to ascertain the user's musical likes and/or dislikes, e.g., playlists and a playback history, may also be uploaded to the master device from the DMP. Control then passes to block 70 to determine whether any more DMP's are awaiting connection to the master device. If so, control passes to block 62 to connect another DMP.”, while utilized in a slightly different embodiment, the system utilizes playback history of users to determine song inclusion within the generated playlist.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of wherein the at least one first index comprises playback history data corresponding to a particular user profile, and search the at least one first index for particular audio tracks corresponding to the search string and having indications of higher playback counts in the playback history data, as taught by Garbow et al, with the system as taught by Oliver et al. The motivation being that utilizing playback history to determine priority within searches is known within the art, and further would allow for more relevant search results than when utilizing unweighted results.
Regarding Claim 14, Oliver et al teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not further teach, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index.
However, Garbow et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index (FIG. 3, step 100, create master playback history by combining playback histories of master and connected dmp’s, step 102, create master song list by combining songs lists of master and connected dmp’s, step 108, generate collaborative playlist based on master song preferences, de-emphasizing or excluding songs in master playback history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of prioritizing a subset of audio tracks having relatively higher playback counts in the at least one first index, as taught by Garbow et al, with the system as taught by Oliver et al. The motivation being that utilizing playback history to determine priority within searches is known within the art, and further would allow for more relevant search results than when utilizing unweighted results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M NEECE whose telephone number is (703)756-1941. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 7pm.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571)-270-7136. 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.
/DYLAN MAGUIRE NEECE/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights