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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 11, 20 recite “while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content, detect a single user input to a graphical user interface displayed on the computing device, the single user input indicating a command for the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content,” in a manner that lacks clear possession in the specification as filed which merely discusses a single step of a multi-input operation to a user interface sufficient to cause all zones in a media playback system to form a zone group and play back media in synchrony, such as ultimately by employ of a “join all,” type command as discussed in ¶ 32 of the instant specification. The specification does support a plurality of inputs operable “while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content,” to instruct the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content such as by setting up a user interface, such as or similar to that of instant figure 10B, to select the specified grouping in such a manner, such as to perhaps invoke the changeover represented upon Row D of figure 11, in which case indeed the singular user interface operation to “join,” would meet the recited “based on,” type behavior, however the specification as filed is not considered to show possession of a single user command operable in the manner claimed. As such the claims are considered to lack clear possession in the specification as filed. Claims 2-10, 12-19 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the user interface operative to perform the recited steps as a result of a single user interface operation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lambourne: hereinafter Lam.
Regarding claim 1
Lam teaches:
A computing device, comprising:
at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor (Lam: Figs 2A, 2C: such as the microcontroller and memory upon the computing device of figure 2C, operable to direct synchronous playback of media among a plurality of playback devices, depicted in Fig 2A the processor and memory of which responsive to the computing device) cause the computing device to:
detect an indication of a first playback device of a media playback system, wherein the first playback device is grouped for synchronous playback of first audio content with a second playback device of the media playback system (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon a displayed zone menu such as that of Fig 3D to link zones resulting in a group of a first and second player upon which a media is synchronously delivered, such as by selecting only the living room player to join in delivery of synchronous media with the bedroom player );
while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: during playback, such as a group comprising a zone similar to that delivering the Beatles media in fig 3E, but only comprising a bedroom and living room player),
detect a single user input to a graphical user interface displayed on the computing device, the single user input indicating a command for the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon the zone menu of fig 3C to unlink a the living room zone from the group upon or subsequent to the event of a next, second, etc. media emergent upon a playback queue, or the command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles); and
based on the single user input, cause the first playback device and second playback device to become ungrouped and cause the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back the second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by unlinking or otherwise invoking a drop zone command with respect to the second living room player in the zone menu of fig 3D whereupon only the bedroom player delivers a next media; or whereupon the bedroom player operates to deliver media by U2 in synchrony with the study player). In this way Lam anticipates the recited “while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content,” operating to instruct the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content such as by setting up a user interface, such as or similar to that of figure 10B of the instant application (Lam: Fig 3C-3E: such as by operating the depicted user interface in a manner substantially similar), to select the specified grouping in such a manner, such as to perhaps invoke the changeover represented upon Row D of figure 11, in which case indeed the singular user interface operation to “link,” selected players would meet the recited “based on,” type behavior.
Regarding claim 2
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the command for the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back the second audio content comprises a command for the first playback device to join a third playback device of the media playback system for synchronous playback of the second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles), and wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to cause the first playback device to play back the second audio content comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: cause the first playback device to become grouped with the third playback device and play back the second audio content in synchrony with the third playback device (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by invoking the command for the bedroom player to join with the study player whereupon the bedroom player ceases to deliver the Beatles in concert with the living room player and operates to deliver media by U2 in synchrony with the study player).
Regarding claim 3
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: after detecting the indication of the first playback device, display a selectable indication of the first playback device (Lam: Figs 3C-3E).
Regarding claim 4
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 3, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: before detecting the single user input, detect a prior input that indicates a command to cause the computing device to display a list of playback devices of the playback media system (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as invocation of the zone menu such as by pressing button such as 244 on the controller of fig 2B to invoke the zone menu of figures 3); and based on the detected prior input: determine at least one playback device of the playback media system to include in the list of playback devices, wherein the determined at least one playback device includes the second playback device; and display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as by the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3).
Regarding claim 5
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display an individually selectable indication of each playback device in the list of playback devices (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as an indicia similar to that of the shown radio button).
Regarding claim 6
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the list of the playback devices includes one of: every playback device in the media playback system that is playing back media from a respective playback queue; every playback device in the media playback system that has media in a respective playback queue; or every playback device in the media playback system (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3).
Regarding claim 7
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: for each respective playback device in the list of playback devices, if the playback device has media in a respective playback queue corresponding to the playback device, display an indication of the media (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3 including display of playing media ).
Regarding claim 8
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the second audio content is not queued for playback by any playback device of the media playback system before being played back by the first playback device (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by the user determining to drop the living room playback device when the bedroom playback device has begun playing a subsequent media which is at that point no longer in a queue but instead actively delivered or currently playing).
Regarding claim 9
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first playback device and the second playback device are synchronously playing back the first audio content when the single user input is detected, and wherein the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: based on the single user input, cause the second playback device to stop playing back the first audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by unlinking or otherwise invoking a drop zone command with respect to the second living room player in the zone menu of fig 3D whereupon only the bedroom player delivers media).
Regarding claim 10
Lam teaches:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first playback device and the second playback device are synchronously playing back the first audio content when the single user input is detected, and wherein the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: based on the single user input, cause the second playback device to continue playing back the first audio content (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as based on a command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles whereupon the living room player continues to deliver the Beatles).
Regarding claim 11, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9, 10 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 8290603 hereinafter Lam. further in view of Wachter: 20150286360 hereinafter Wac.
Regarding claim 1
Lam teaches:
A computing device, comprising:
at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor (Lam: Figs 2A, 2C: such as the microcontroller and memory upon the computing device of figure 2C, operable to direct synchronous playback of media among a plurality of playback devices, depicted in Fig 2A the processor and memory of which responsive to the computing device) cause the computing device to:
detect an indication of a first playback device of a media playback system, wherein the first playback device is grouped for synchronous playback of first audio content with a second playback device of the media playback system (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon a displayed zone menu such as that of Fig 3D to link zones resulting in a group of a first and second player upon which a media is synchronously delivered, such as by selecting only the living room player to join in delivery of synchronous media with the bedroom player );
while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: during playback, such as a group comprising a zone similar to that delivering the Beatles media in fig 3E, but only comprising a bedroom and living room player),
detect a single user input to a graphical user interface displayed on the computing device, the single user input indicating a command for the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon the zone menu of fig 3C to unlink a the living room zone from the group upon or subsequent to the event of a next, second, etc. media emergent upon a playback queue, or the command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles); and based on the single user input,
cause the first playback device and second playback device to become ungrouped and cause the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back the second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by unlinking or otherwise invoking a drop zone command with respect to the second living room player in the zone menu of fig 3D whereupon only the bedroom player delivers a next media; or whereupon the bedroom player operates to deliver media by U2 in synchrony with the study player). In this way Lam anticipates the recited “while the first playback device and the second playback device are grouped for synchronous playback of the first audio content,” operating to instruct the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back second audio content such as by setting up a user interface, such as or similar to that of figure 10B of the instant application (Lam: Fig 3C-3E: such as by operating the depicted user interface in a manner substantially similar), to select the specified grouping in such a manner, such as to perhaps invoke the changeover represented upon Row D of figure 11, in which case indeed the singular user interface operation to “link,” selected players would meet the recited “based on,” type behavior.
Lam teaches the single input suitable to execute the claimed configuration as part of a multi-step process a manner similar to that disclosed in the specification as filed. Lam does not discuss a singular user input operable to perform the recited configuration in the manner claimed.
In a related field of endeavor Wac teaches a system and method for configuring a plurality of playback devices based upon a single input to a user interface (Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81; Figs 6A, 6C) such that while grouped a first player is grouped with a second player the first player is dragged free of the group, in which case the dragged player is removed from the group; or the dragged player is dragged upon a second set of grouped players in which case the first player plays a second media, that of the second set; or the dragged player is dragged upon an upon a upon an ungrouped player to form a new group therewith, in which case the group continues playback of the media upon the first player (Wac: ¶ 97-100; Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the user interface of Lam to utilize singular gestures similar to that taught or suggested by Wac for at least the purpose of simplifying groupings on a constellation of playback devices; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. It would have been further obvious based on the teachings of Lam and Wac to conduct playback of a second media upon the subsequently solitary playback device or upon the dragged to and thus created new group: the teachings of Lam and Wac address the same recognized need as the instant application a user interface for grouping playback devices under user direction; Wac discusses all the finite and predictable potential solutions of grouping and media playback but has designed the system such that the dragged to media player synchronizes to media playing back upon the dragged media player rather than the reverse; one of ordinary skill could have pursued this alternate solution as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success and in full expectation of predictable results. Thus such a configuration of elements would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as doing so would comprise no more than permutation among the known choices as fully presented by Lam in view of Wac.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the command for the first playback device, but not the second playback device, to play back the second audio content comprises a command for the first playback device to join a third playback device of the media playback system for synchronous playback of the second audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as a command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles), and wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to cause the first playback device to play back the second audio content comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: cause the first playback device to become grouped with the third playback device and play back the second audio content in synchrony with the third playback device (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by invoking the command for the bedroom player to join with the study player whereupon the bedroom player ceases to deliver the Beatles in concert with the living room player and operates to deliver media by U2 in synchrony with the study player); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: after detecting the indication of the first playback device, display a selectable indication of the first playback device (Lam: Figs 3C-3E); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 3, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: before detecting the single user input, detect a prior input that indicates a command to cause the computing device to display a list of playback devices of the playback media system (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as invocation of the zone menu such as by pressing button such as 244 on the controller of fig 2B to invoke the zone menu of figures 3); and based on the detected prior input: determine at least one playback device of the playback media system to include in the list of playback devices, wherein the determined at least one playback device includes the second playback device; and display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as by the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display an individually selectable indication of each playback device in the list of playback devices (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as an indicia similar to that of the shown radio button); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the list of the playback devices includes one of: every playback device in the media playback system that is playing back media from a respective playback queue; every playback device in the media playback system that has media in a respective playback queue; or every playback device in the media playback system (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to display the determined at least one playback device in the list of playback devices comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: for each respective playback device in the list of playback devices, if the playback device has media in a respective playback queue corresponding to the playback device, display an indication of the media (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 2B, 3C-3E: such as the display of playback devices of the system in a zone menu screen such as that of figures 3 including display of playing media); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the second audio content is not queued for playback by any playback device of the media playback system before being played back by the first playback device (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by the user determining to drop the living room playback device when the bedroom playback device has begun playing a subsequent media which is at that point no longer in a queue but instead actively delivered or currently playing); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first playback device and the second playback device are synchronously playing back the first audio content when the single user input is detected, and wherein the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: based on the single user input, cause the second playback device to stop playing back the first audio content (Lam: Col 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as by unlinking or otherwise invoking a drop zone command with respect to the second living room player in the zone menu of fig 3D whereupon only the bedroom player delivers media); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Lam in view of Wac teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first playback device and the second playback device are synchronously playing back the first audio content when the single user input is detected, and wherein the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: based on the single user input, cause the second playback device to continue playing back the first audio content (Lam: Col 6:53-6:65, 8:6-8:16, 9:43-10:22; Figs 3C-3E: such as based on a command upon the zone menu for the bedroom player to join with another player such as the study and begin delivering music by U2 instead of the Beatles whereupon the living room player continues to deliver the Beatles); (please see also Wac: Abstract: ¶ 79-81, 97-100 etc.; Figs 6A, 6C, 9, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Wac as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam and/or Wac to the modified device of Lam and Wac; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9, 10 and is similarly rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights