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 .
Remarks
Claims 2-21 are pending.
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 2 and 5-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 18408251 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention would be obvious in view of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table below shows how the claims in the instant application are anticipated by copending Application No. 18408251:
copending Application No. 18408251
Instant Application
2. A method of controlling manipulation of a playlist including a queue of media items to be played, the method being performed by a first electronic device associated with a first user account, the first electronic device having one or more processors and a memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
displaying the playlist in a user interface of the first electronic device, wherein the playlist is generated based on a set of media preferences associated with the first electronic device;
receiving, from a server system, authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with a second electronic device associated with a second user account that is different from the first user account, wherein the authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist is sent to the first and second electronic devices, wherein the authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device is received in accordance with a determination that the first and the second electronic devices are located within a defined geographic proximity;
after receiving authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device:
receiving, from the server system, an updated order of media items based on a request from the second electronic device to update an order of media items in the playlist;
and displaying the updated order of media items in the playlist.
2. A method of controlling manipulation of a queue of media items to be played, the method being performed by a first electronic device associated with a first user account, the first electronic device having one or more processors and memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
displaying the queue of media items in a user interface of the first electronic device, wherein the queue of media items is generated based on a set of media preferences associated with the first electronic device;
receiving, from a server system, authorization to collaboratively manipulate the queue of media items with a second electronic device associated with a second user account that is different from the first user account;
after receiving authorization to collaboratively manipulate the queue of media items with the second electronic device:
receiving, from the server system, an update to the queue of media items based on a request from the second electronic device;
and displaying the updated queue of media items.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device;
and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the predefined the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the predefined the defined geographic proximity of the first electronic device, wherein authorization to collaboratively manipulate the playlist with the second electronic device to manipulate the playlist is received after transmitting the message to the server system.
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within a predefined proximity of the first electronic device;
and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device, wherein the authorization to collaboratively manipulate the queue of media items with the second electronic device to manipulate the queue of media items is received after transmitting the message to the server system.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the communications protocol is Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC).
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the communications protocol is Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC).
6. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
accessing information indicating a geographic location of a third electronic device;
and in response to a determination that the third electronic device has entered the defined geographic proximity with the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system to authorize the third electronic device to manipulate the playlist.
7. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
accessing information indicating a geographic location of a third electronic device;
and in response to a determination that the third electronic device has entered a defined geographic proximity with the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system to authorize the third electronic device to manipulate the queue of media items.
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 6, further comprising, streaming updated orders of media items in the playlist in response to respective requests from the first electronic device, the second electronic device, and the third electronic device to manipulate the playlist.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising, streaming updated orders of media items in the queue of media items in response to respective requests from the first electronic device, the second electronic device, and the third electronic device to manipulate the queue of media items.
8. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
sending, to the server system, a request to manipulate the playlist;
and receiving, from the server system, a second updated order of media items based on the request from the first electronic device to manipulate playlist.
9. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
sending, to the server system, a request to manipulate the queue of media items;
and receiving, from the server system, a second updated order of media items based on the request from the first electronic device to manipulate queue of media items.
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 (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 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 2-3, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soldner et al. (‘Soldner’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160117144, claiming priority to Provisional application No. 62067428, filed on Oct 22, 2014) in view of Lewis et al. (‘Lewis’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 10222939).
As per claim 2, Soldner teaches
A method of controlling manipulation of a queue of media items to be played, the method being performed by a first electronic device associated with a first user account, the first electronic device having one or more processors and memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the method comprising: (see abstract and background; paragraphs [0079]-[0082])
displaying the queue of media items in a user interface of the first electronic device, wherein the queue of media items is generated based on a set of media preferences associated with the first electronic device; (display queue of songs, paragraph [0048]-[0049]; client device communicates requests for placing content on queue, paragraph [0045])
and displaying the updated queue of media items (presentation of adjusted sequence, paragraph [0074] & figure 10 #1014).
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “receiving, from a server system, authorization to collaboratively
However, Lewis discloses “receiving, from a server system, authorization to collaboratively
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
As per claim 3, Soldner teaches
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “the authorization to
However, Lewis discloses “the authorization to
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
As per claim 9, Soldner teaches
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “sending, to the server system, a request to
However, Lewis discloses “sending, to the server system, a request to
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
As per claims 10-11 and 17,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 2-3 and 9, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 18-19,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 2-3 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 4-8, 12-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soldner et al. (‘Soldner’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160117144, claiming priority to provisional application No. 62067428, filed on Oct 22, 2014) in view of Lewis et al. (‘Lewis’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 10222939) and further in view of Ozcan et al. (‘Ozcan’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160330794, claiming priority to provisional application No. 62159051, filed on May 8, 2015).
As per claim 4, Soldner teaches
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “the authorization to collaboratively
However, Lewis discloses “the authorization to collaboratively
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
Neither Soldner and Lewis explicitly indicate “in accordance with a determination that the first and the second electronic devices are located within a defined geographic proximity”.
However, Ozcan discloses “in accordance with a determination that the first and the second electronic devices are located within a defined geographic proximity” (collaboration feature in a music listening application for devices which enables users in close proximity to each other to create or join a common playlist, paragraphs [0005]-[0006],[0041]; customers in the area, paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner, Lewis and Ozcan because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to contribute to a common playlist without an internet connection (see Ozcan, background). This gives the user the advantage of more convenient collaboration between localized users.
As per claim 5, Soldner teaches
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “wherein the authorization”.
However, Lewis discloses “wherein the authorization” (collaborative controls for playlist supplied by one or more specified users as indicated by login of that user, column 15, lines 20-35; collaborative control for the playlist where only specified users are permitted to make content item suggestions for the playlist, column 15, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
Neither Soldner and Lewis explicitly indicate “determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within a predefined proximity of the first electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device device to
However, Ozcan discloses “determining, using a communications protocol, whether the second electronic device is within a predefined proximity of the first electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system indicating that the second electronic device is within the predefined proximity of the first electronic device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner, Lewis and Ozcan because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to contribute to a common playlist without an internet connection (see Ozcan, background). This gives the user the advantage of more convenient collaboration between localized users.
As per claim 6, Soldner teaches
the communications protocol is Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC). (paragraph [0080]).
As per claim 7, Soldner teaches
Soldner does not explicitly indicate “to authorize”.
However, Lewis discloses “to authorize” (collaborative controls for playlist supplied by one or more specified users as indicated by login of that user, column 15, lines 20-35; collaborative control for the playlist where only specified users are permitted to make content item suggestions for the playlist, column 15, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner and Lewis because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for users other than that single user to participate in the formulation of the playlist (see Lewis, background). This gives the user the advantage of having input from different users to create a more collaborative listening experience.
Neither Soldner and Lewis explicitly indicate “accessing information indicating a geographic location of a third electronic device; and in response to a determination that the third electronic device has entered a defined geographic proximity with the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system
However, Ozcan discloses “accessing information indicating a geographic location of a third electronic device; and in response to a determination that the third electronic device has entered a defined geographic proximity with the first electronic device, transmitting a message to a server system
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner, Lewis and Ozcan because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to contribute to a common playlist without an internet connection (see Ozcan, background). This gives the user the advantage of more convenient collaboration between localized users.
As per claim 8, Soldner teaches
Neither Soldner and Lewis explicitly indicate “streaming
However, Ozcan discloses “streaming
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soldner, Lewis and Ozcan because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to contribute to a common playlist without an internet connection (see Ozcan, background). This gives the user the advantage of more convenient collaboration between localized users.
As per claims 12-16,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 4-8 and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 20-21,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 4-5 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights