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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,010,492 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. For example, claim 1 includes most of the limitations of the previously patent claim 1, except “…based on an indication that analog audio signals are no longer being generated, requesting, via the network interface, audio content from one or more remote computing devices, wherein the requesting comprises identifying related content based on the first audio”. Therefore, the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since all features are obvious variation of the patented claims.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,284,500 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. For example, claim 1 includes most of the limitations of the previously patent claim 1, except “…after determining the trigger condition, obtaining, synthetic novel audio content that is based at least in part on the analog audio signals; and causing playback of second audio based on the synthetic novel audio content”. Therefore, the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since all features are obvious variation of the patented claims.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang, Ming-Jen (US Patent 10,802,798) in view of Fischer, Jean-Bernard (US Pub 2019/0268663).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses a media playback system, comprising:
an analog audio source component (see fig. 1);
one or more audio transducers (figs. 1 and 2; and col. 3, line 58-col. 4, line 12);
one or more processors (fig. 2, element 125); and
data storage having instructions therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the media playback system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, via the analog audio source component, an identifier encoded on an analog medium (col. 3, lines 10-42);
playing back, via the one or more audio transducers, the received digital media content (col. 4, line 65 - col 5, line 28 and col. 6, lines 1-18 ).
Chiang does not disclose a first network interface and a second network interface; sending, via the first network interface, data corresponding to the obtained identifier to one or more remote computing devices;
receiving, via the second network interface, digital media content associated with the sent data.
Fischer discloses a first network interface (para 0034, 0065) and a second network interface (para 0032);
sending, via the first network interface, data corresponding to the obtained identifier to one or more remote computing devices (para 0018, 0059-0060, 0065);
receiving, via the second network interface, digital media content associated with the sent data (0019, 0037, 0067, 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang with the teachings of Fischer in order to “access data to gain access to said item of content, while minimizing the communication costs” (Fischer, para 0002).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang discloses wherein the analog medium comprises a vinyl record (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang discloses wherein the identifier is encoded in a form that permits the analog medium to be played back on conventional analog audio source components (col. 4, line 65 - col 5, line 28 and col. 6, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 4, Chiang in view of Fischer discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks from the analog medium (Fischer, para 0019 – Chiang discloses playing audio based on encoding from the record and Fischer discloses content received is the media content corresponding the item identified by the identification data in the request).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang in view of Fischer discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks from an artist associated with the analog medium (same as claim 4 and music tracks are made by the artist associated with the record).
Regarding claim 10, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, see rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang, Ming-Jen (US Patent 10,802,798) in view of Fischer, Jean-Bernard (US Pub 2019/0268663) and in further view of Picker et al. (US Patent 6,748,395).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang discloses a media playback system of claim 1, playing digital media content based on the scanned analog medium.
Chiang in view of Fischer does not discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks from a generated station based on characteristics of content associated with the analog medium.
Picker discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks from a generated station based on characteristics of content associated with the analog medium (see abstract; fig. 4; col. 6, lines 13-29 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang in view of Fischer with the teachings of Picker in order to “automatically generating playlists of closely related and/or similarly situated media entities for distribution to participating users” (Picker, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang discloses a media playback system of claim 1, playing digital media content based on the scanned analog medium.
Chiang in view of Fischer does not discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks sharing at least one of: a genre, a decade, or a geographical association with content of the analog medium.
Picker discloses wherein the digital media content associated with the transmitted data comprises audio tracks sharing at least one of: a genre, a decade, or a geographical association with content of col. 2, lines 28-41 and col. 9, lines 9-17 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang in view of Fischer with the teachings of Picker in order to “automatically generating playlists of closely related and/or similarly situated media entities for distribution to participating users” (Picker, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang, Ming-Jen (US Patent 10,802,798) in view of Fischer, Jean-Bernard (US Pub 2019/0268663) and in further view of Millington et al. (US Pub 2012/0263318).
Regarding claim 8, Chiang discloses a media playback system of claim 1, playing digital media content based on the scanned analog medium.
Chiang in view of Fischer does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the analog audio source component is generating analog audio signals from the analog medium; and
in response to the determination, ceasing playback of the digital media content and initiating playback of the analog audio signals.
Millington discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the analog audio source component is generating analog audio signals from the analog medium; and
in response to the determination, ceasing playback of the digital media content and initiating playback of the analog audio signals (para 0024, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang in view of Fischer with the teachings of Millington such that “a listener can control the audio device itself and let the system detect a line-in signal and automatically switch the source of the playback device to play from the audio device” (Millington, para 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Chiang discloses a media playback system of claim 1, playing digital media content based on the scanned analog medium.
Chiang in view of Fischer does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the analog audio source component has ceased generating analog audio signals from the analog medium; and
in response to the determination, requesting additional digital media content from the one or more remote computing devices.
Millington discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the analog audio source component has ceased generating analog audio signals from the analog medium; and
in response to the determination, requesting additional digital media content from the one or more remote computing devices (0025, 0041, 0148 - rearmed to play audio from second source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang in view of Fischer with the teachings of Millington such that “a listener can control the audio device itself and let the system detect a line-in signal and automatically switch the source of the playback device to play from the audio device” (Millington, para 0023).
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
