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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2024 & 10/5/2025, were filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amidon et al. (US 20120023430 A1, published: 1/26/2012), in view of Marra et al. (US 9262936 B2, published: 2/16/2016).
Claim 1: Amidon teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from a first device of the first user, a prompt for the first shared list of media elements (indicators representative of activity levels with respect to playlists in the media sharing system may be generated and presented to the user [Amidon, 0004]. The media sharing system 10 includes a number of user devices 12-1 through 12-N having associated users 14-1 through 14-N [Amidon, 0012, FIG. 1]. Each of the user devices 12-1 through 12-N may be, for example, a personal computer, a mobile smart phone, a set-top box, a portable media player, or the like. Looking at the user device 12-1, the user device 12-1 includes a media player function 18-1 which may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof [Amidon, 0013]);
providing the prompt to a second device of a second user of the group of users and a third device of a third use of the group of users; receiving a first media element submission from the second device; receiving a second media element submission from the third device; receiving a selection of the first media element submission from the first device (indicators of activity levels of one or more playlists, or the like, or any combination thereof. The activity level of the local media collection 22-1 may be determined based on or may otherwise reflect the number or percentage of other users 14-2 through 14-N that are currently playing, have recently played, or are expected to play media items included the local media collection 22-1 of the user 14-1. The activity level of a shared media collection may be determined based on or may otherwise reflect the number or percentage of users 14-1 through 14-N that are currently playing, have recently played, or are expected to play media items included the shared media collection [Amidon, 0014]; Examiner's Note: wherein Amidon is describing a situation where multiple device can control the shared media collection); and
including the first media element submission in the first shared list of media elements based on the selection of the first media element submission (FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary Graphical User Interface (GUI) 26 for displaying activity indicators with respect to the media sharing system 10 according to one embodiment of the present invention [Amidon, 0038, FIG. 3]. The GUI 26 includes a navigation area 28 and a display area 30. The navigation area 28 includes a media collection selection area 32 and a playlist selection area 34. Using the user 14-1 as an example, the media collection selection area 32 is used to present a list of media collections available to the user 14-1. In this example, the list of media collections available to the user 14-1 includes the local media collection 22-1 of the user 14-1 which has the title "My Collection" and three shared media collections having the titles "Chris's Collection," "Harold's Collection," and "Hugh's Collection." [Amidon, 0039]).
Amidon does not teach selecting, by a processor, a first user from a group of users as a first judge for a first shared list of media elements.
However, Marra teaches selecting, by a processor, a first user from a group of users as a first judge for a first shared list of media elements (in step 310, a leadership score corresponding to an individual is determined. The leadership score corresponds to a level of correlation between the individual and a leadership role associated with an online group relating to a subject matter [Marra, 5:43-45]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the multi-user media sharing interface invention of Amidon to include the sharing judge/leader feature of Marra.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to designate one user as a judge or leader to maintain initial control of the shared session. Such will limit too many people from trying to take control at the same time, and improve the overall experience for all users.
Claims 10 and 17, having similar deficiencies to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 1. Marra further teaches further comprising: increasing a first score associated with the second user based on the selection of the first media element submission; and storing the first shared list of media elements based on the first score reaching a predefined score (data generated or stored at the client computing device 110 can be stored as data 244 [Marra, 4:60-61]. If the individual posts or otherwise shares a link to an article relating to a particular subject matter, the individual's subject matter interest score can be increased with respect to that subject matter [Marra, 6:38-42]).
Claims 11 and 18, having similar deficiencies to claim 2, are likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 2. Marra further teaches further comprising: selecting the second user from the group of users as a second judge for a second shared list of media elements (the subject matter interest score can be based on a level of correlation between a first subject matter and a second subject matter, wherein a first online group relates to the first subject matter, and the second online group relates to the second subject matter, and the individual is a member of each of the online groups. The opinion impact score of an individual corresponds to a level of impact of an opinion of the individual [Marra, 1:61-2:2]).
Claims 13 and 20, having similar deficiencies to claim 4, are likewise rejected.
Claim 7: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 1. Amidon further teaches further comprising: receiving a reaction to the first media element submission from the third device; and providing the reaction to the first media element submission to the second device (with respect to a user participating in the media sharing system, an indicator representative of an activity level of a media collection shared by the user in the media sharing system may be generated and presented to the user. In addition or alternatively, indicators representative of activity levels of media collections shared by other users participating in the media sharing system may be generated and presented to the user [Amidon, 0004]).
Claim 16, having similar deficiencies to claim 7, is likewise rejected.
Claim 8: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 1. Marra further teaches wherein selecting the first user from the group of users as the first judge is based on a selection of a game mode by the first user (in step 310, a leadership score corresponding to an individual is determined. The leadership score corresponds to a level of correlation between the individual and a leadership role associated with an online group relating to a subject matter [Marra, 5:43-45]).
Claim(s) 6 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amidon et al. (US 20120023430 A1, published: 1/26/2012) and Marra et al. (US 9262936 B2, published: 2/16/2016), and in further view of Aghdaie et al. (US 20180169526 A1, published: 6/21/2018).
Claim 6: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination does not teach further comprising: verifying that the group of users satisfies a minimum number of users; and enabling a game mode in which the first user from the group of users is the first judge for the first shared list of media elements.
However, Aghdaie teaches further comprising: verifying that the group of users satisfies a minimum number of users; and enabling a game mode in which the first user from the group of users is the first judge for the first shared list of media elements (monitoring the user's behavior with respect to the video game may enable a determination of the user's skill level and desired level of challenge [Aghdaie, 0034]. The user clustering system 134 filters out users whose user interaction data does not satisfy a minimum set of interaction criteria [Aghdaie, 0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the multi-user media sharing interface invention of the combination of Amidon and Marra, to include the user verification feature of Aghdaie.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to insure that only allowed users can access the shared content, and prevent unauthorized users from using products that they have no right to.
Claim 15, having similar deficiencies to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amidon et al. (US 20120023430 A1, published: 1/26/2012) and Marra et al. (US 9262936 B2, published: 2/16/2016), and in further view of Tang (US 20180070144 A1, published: 3/8/2018).
Claim 9: The combination of Amidon and Marra, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination does not teach wherein the prompt for the first shared list of media elements is an image.
However, Tang teaches wherein the prompt for the first shared list of media elements is an image (a user of the client 150 uses the content sharing application 160 to connect to the server 110 to play videos and interact with other content items (e.g., audio files, images, etc.) that have been provided by content providers [Tang, 0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the multi-user media sharing interface invention of the combination of Amidon and Marra, to include the image of a shared list feature of Tang.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow users to see what is being shared.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights