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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites second user authentication credentials; however first user authentication credentials are not recited in claim 6 or in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-7, 12-13 and 16-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 19-21, 25-25 and 27-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,092. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘092 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claim 1 of the instant application, see claim 19 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claim 2 of the instant application, see claims 19-20 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claim 5 of the instant application, see claims 19-21 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claims 6-7 of the instant application, see claims 24-25 of the ‘092 Patent, respectively.
Referring to claim 12 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claim 13 of the instant application, see claims 1-2 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claim 16 of the instant application, see claims 1-3 of the ‘092 Patent.
Referring to claims 17-18 of the instant application, see claims 27-28 of the ‘092 Patent, respectively.
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 3, 14 and 19 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.
The term “substantial” in claims 3, 14 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pantos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0311075) in view of Siegel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0314139).
Referring to claim 1, Pantos discloses a first playback device (see client device 150 in Paragraph 0049 and Figure 1), the first playback device comprising:
a housing surrounding one or more audio transducers (see Paragraphs 0049, 0124 and 0149);
a network interface (see Figure 8 and Paragraph 0175);
one or more processors (see Figure 8 and Paragraph 0173);
and a computer-readable memory storing instructions (see Figure 8 and Paragraph 0172) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first playback device to perform operations comprising:
causing a video display device to display a graphical user interface that includes one or more graphical representations corresponding to media content accessible to a first user account (see the Netflix and MLB app in Paragraph 0168, the Examiner notes that the Netflix and MLB app inherently requires the users to set up an account) associated with the first playback device (see Paragraph 0168 for displaying a GUI to select an audio program for a video program the user of a Netflix account wishes to view),
receiving an indication of user-selected media content associated with a particular media content provider (see Paragraph 0168 for selecting a video program),
transmitting, via the network interface, a request for the user-selected media content (see Paragraph 0009 for the client requesting audio-visual content from server 1227 in Figure 12),
receiving, after transmitting the request, first media content corresponding to the user-selected media content, wherein receiving the first media content comprises receiving, via the network interface, the first media content from one or more servers associated with the particular media content provider (see Paragraph 0009 and server 1227 in Figure 12),
causing, via the video display device, playback of video content associated with the first media content (see Paragraph 0168 and the bottom of Paragraph 0169 for synchronizing the selected audio program and synchronizing that audio program with the selected video program), and
causing, via a second playback device, playback of at least a first portion of audio content associated with the first media content (see Paragraph 0168 and the bottom of Paragraph 0169 for synchronizing the selected audio program and synchronizing that audio program with the selected video program).
Pantos fails to teach that the first playback device lacks a video display and that that video display device is separate from the housing of the first playback device.
Siegel discloses that the first playback device lacks a video display and that that video display device is separate from the housing of the first playback device (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0013-0016).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio-visual content playback system, as taught by Pantos, using the STB connected to a TV, as taught by Siegel, for the purpose thus allowing consumers a choice of bypassing cable or satellite or other video content service provider by providing access to readily available broadcast video content services (see the bottom of Paragraph 0007 of Siegel).
Referring to claim 2, Pantos also discloses a hardware interface, wherein causing playback of the video content associated with the first media content comprises sending, via the hardware interface, the video content associated with the first media content to the video display device (see Figure 8 and Paragraph 0174 for the hardware interface/bus 105 outputting the received video content to display device 850).
Referring to claim 3, Pantos also discloses causing, via a third playback device, playback of at least a second portion of the audio content associated with the first media content in synchrony with playback of the first portion of audio content via the second playback device (see Paragraphs 0124, 0149 and 0169 for playing the audio content through more than one speaker in synchrony with the video content).
Referring to claim 4, Pantos also discloses causing the playback of the first and second portions of the audio content via the second and third playback devices, respectively, comprises sending, via the network interface, (i) the first portion of audio content to the second playback device and the second portion of audio content to the third playback device (see the rejection of claim 3 for the multiple speakers (second and third playback devices) being used to output the audio content through each playback device, wherein Paragraphs 0168-0169 play the video content synchronously with the audio content through both speakers/second and third playback devices).
Referring to claim 5, Pantos also discloses transmitting both the first portion of audio content associated with the first media content and the video content associated with the first media content to the video display device (see Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0044 and 0149);
Pantos also discloses that after receiving the first portion of audio content associated with the first media content from the video display device, playing back the first portion of audio content associated with the first media content while the video display device synchronously plays back the video content associated with the first media content (see Paragraph 0169).
Pantos fails to teach that the video display device sends the audio content to the audio playback device.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a video display device can transmit audio to an audio playback device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio-visual content playback system, as taught by Pantos, using the audio transmission functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s Statement of Official Notice, for the purpose allowing a video display device to control which audio the user can listen to instead of listening to audio content using the video display devices speakers, which have lower sound quality.
Referring to claim 7, Pantos also discloses the first user account is one of a plurality of user accounts, and wherein the graphical user interface is accessible via each of the plurality of user accounts (see the Netflix and MLB app in Paragraph 0168, the Examiner notes that the Netflix and MLB app inherently requires the users to set up an account).
Referring to claim 8, Pantos also discloses causing playback of at least the first portion of the audio content comprises sending, via the network interface, the first portion of the audio content to the second playback device, the second playback device comprising a wearable playback device that includes a headphone (see Paragraph 0124).
Referring to claim 9, Pantos and Siegel also disclose that the second playback device comprises the video display device (see Figure 8 of Pantos and Paragraph 0014 of Siegel).
Referring to claim 11, Pantos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein Pantos teaches that the user-selected media content is first user-selected media content associated with the first user account (see the Netflix and MLB app in Paragraph 0168) and receiving an indication of second user-selected content associated with a second user (see Paragraph 0008 for streaming services distributing live content to end users and Paragraph 0168 for providing users with the Netflix or MLB app to request audio and video content), but fails to teach causing, via a third playback device, display of the graphical user interface and causing, via the third playback device, playback of audio and video content corresponding to the second user-selected media content.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a third playback device can display a GUI and that the third playback device can playback audio and video content corresponding to the second user-selected media content.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio-visual content playback system, as taught by Pantos, using the audio transmission functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s Statement of Official Notice, for the purpose allowing a user to view video content on a secondary device, such as a tablet that is closer to the user.
Referring to claims 12-16, see the rejection of claims 1-5, respectively.
Referring to claims 17-20, see the rejection of claims 1-4, respectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pantos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0311075) in view of Siegel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0314139) in further view of Srivastav (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0312073).
Referring to claim 6, Pantos and Siegel disclose all of the limitation in claim 1, while Pantos further teaches causing the video display device to display a graphical user interface that includes one or more graphical representations corresponding to media content accessible to the second user account, wherein the media content accessible to the second user account is different from the media content accessible to the first user account (see Paragraph 0008 for streaming services distributing live content to end users and Paragraph 0168 for providing users with the Netflix or MLB app to request audio and video content), but fails to teach receiving second user authentication credentials associated with a second user account.
Srivastav discloses receiving second user authentication credentials associated with a second user account (see Figure 3B and Paragraphs 0052-0055).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio-visual content transmission and display system, as taught by Pantos and Siegel, using the user authentication functionality, as taught by Srivastav, for the purpose of automating sign-in processes and more specifically to using customer-based authentication devices for submitting authentication information to authentication servers for signing-in multiple accounts corresponding to different application servers (see Paragraph 0001 of Srivastav).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
December 2, 2025