DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 22 APRIL 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 15/714,882, 16/518,726, 17/234,068, and 18/635,694. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,750 (herein the Patent) in view of Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 and further in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0010515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose based on receiving the playback control command: implement the playback control command at the first playback device, and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the playback control command; and
cause the first playback device to transmit the playback control command to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol.
However, in a related art, Le Nerriec does disclose implement an operation at the first playback device (receiver/first device can perform its own synchronized output of content; page 3, paragraph 32), and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the operation (any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49); and
cause the first playback device to transmit to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (with at least transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Le Nerriec to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing converted information to be transmitted to grouped devices for synchronous playback, in order to provide an improved system and method for transmitting and synchronizing playback of a media content stream that is received over a point-to-point connection on multiple interconnected devices (Le Nerriec; page 1, paragraph 2).
While the Patent in view of Le Nerriec also discloses playback control commands (Le Nerriec; commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51), the Patent in view of Le Nerriec still does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command, and a second device to implement the command.
However, in a related art, Lee does disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implementation of the command at a first device (commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and initial/first, device can receive from source and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89), and a second device to implement the command (second device(s) can receive the commands as well for initiation; page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent, Le Nerriec, and Lee to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing certain commands to be received from a source device and utilized for operations by multiple devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for synchronizing media playback between a sending media device and a receiving media device (Lee; page 1, paragraph 5).
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, and 18-22 are additionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,815 (herein the Patent) in view of Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 and further in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0010515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream;
based on receiving the playback control command: implement the playback control command at the first playback device, and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the playback control command; and
cause the first playback device to transmit the playback control command to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol.
However, In a related art, Le Nerriec does disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream (with transmission to the devices via different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49);
implement an operation at the first playback device (receiver/first device can perform its own synchronized output of content; page 3, paragraph 32), and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the operation (any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49); and
cause the first playback device to transmit to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (with at least transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Le Nerriec to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing converted information to be transmitted to grouped devices for synchronous playback, in order to provide an improved system and method for transmitting and synchronizing playback of a media content stream that is received over a point-to-point connection on multiple interconnected devices (Le Nerriec; page 1, paragraph 2).
While the Patent in view of Le Nerriec also discloses playback control commands (Le Nerriec; commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51), the Patent in view of Le Nerriec still does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command, and a second device to implement the command.
However, in a related art, Lee does disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implementation of the command at a first device (commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and initial/first, device can receive from source and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89), and a second device to implement the command (second device(s) can receive the commands as well for initiation; page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent, Le Nerriec, and Lee to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing certain commands to be received from a source device and utilized for operations by multiple devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for synchronizing media playback between a sending media device and a receiving media device (Lee; page 1, paragraph 5).
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, and 18-22 are additionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 5-6, 11, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,986,376 (herein the Patent) in view of Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 and further in view of and further in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0010515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream;
based on receiving the playback control command: implement the playback control command at the first playback device, and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the playback control command; and
cause the first playback device to transmit the playback control command to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol.
However, In a related art, Le Nerriec does disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream (with transmission to the devices via different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49);
implement an operation at the first playback device (receiver/first device can perform its own synchronized output of content; page 3, paragraph 32), and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the operation (any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49); and
cause the first playback device to transmit to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (with at least transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Le Nerriec to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing converted information to be transmitted to grouped devices for synchronous playback, in order to provide an improved system and method for transmitting and synchronizing playback of a media content stream that is received over a point-to-point connection on multiple interconnected devices (Le Nerriec; page 1, paragraph 2).
While the Patent in view of Le Nerriec also discloses playback control commands (Le Nerriec; commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51), the Patent in view of Le Nerriec still does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command, and a second device to implement the command.
However, in a related art, Lee does disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implementation of the command at a first device (commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and initial/first, device can receive from source and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89), and a second device to implement the command (second device(s) can receive the commands as well for initiation; page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent, Le Nerriec, and Lee to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing certain commands to be received from a source device and utilized for operations by multiple devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for synchronizing media playback between a sending media device and a receiving media device (Lee; page 1, paragraph 5).
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, and 18-22 are additionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 5-6, 11, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,362,339 (herein the Patent) in view of Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 and further in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0010515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream;
based on receiving the playback control command: implement the playback control command at the first playback device, and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the playback control command; and
cause the first playback device to transmit the playback control command to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol.
However, In a related art, Le Nerriec does disclose causing a synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of a media stream (with transmission to the devices via different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49);
implement an operation at the first playback device (receiver/first device can perform its own synchronized output of content; page 3, paragraph 32), and cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the operation (any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49); and
cause the first playback device to transmit to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (with at least transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Le Nerriec to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing converted information to be transmitted to grouped devices for synchronous playback, in order to provide an improved system and method for transmitting and synchronizing playback of a media content stream that is received over a point-to-point connection on multiple interconnected devices (Le Nerriec; page 1, paragraph 2).
While the Patent in view of Le Nerriec also discloses playback control commands (Le Nerriec; commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51), the Patent in view of Le Nerriec still does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command, and a second device to implement the command.
However, in a related art, Lee does disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implementation of the command at a first device (commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and initial/first, device can receive from source and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89), and a second device to implement the command (second device(s) can receive the commands as well for initiation; page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent, Le Nerriec, and Lee to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing certain commands to be received from a source device and utilized for operations by multiple devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for synchronizing media playback between a sending media device and a receiving media device (Lee; page 1, paragraph 5).
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, 4-5, 8-12, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 in view of Warrick et al., US 2013/0346564 and further in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0010515.
Regarding claim 1, Le Nerriec discloses a first playback device (with at least media output device; Fig. 1C, element 100, and Fig. 6, element 600, and page 10, paragraphs 90-91) comprising:
at least one processor (with at least processor; Fig. 6, element 604, and page 10, paragraph 91);
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (including non-transitory memory; Fig. 6, element 606, and page 10, paragraph 91); and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor (with processor executable instructions stored on the memory; page 10, paragraph 91), cause the first playback device to:
receive, from a media source device via a first protocol, a media stream for playback (can receive media stream from a source via at least a first protocol, such as Bluetooth; page 9, paragraph 79);
join, via a second protocol that is incompatible with the first protocol, a synchrony group for synchronous playback of media content (can join and form group of media output devices via a second protocol that is incompatible with a first; page 9, paragraphs 79-80, and wherein for synchronous playback; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49), wherein the synchrony group comprises the first playback device and a second playback device (incudes at least the leader/receiver output device and other output devices; page 9, paragraph 80), and wherein the first playback device is configured as a group coordinator of the synchrony group (receiver/leader device, i.e. coordinator; page 3, paragraphs 28 and 31);
transmit, via the second protocol, the media stream to the second playback device (converted media stream can be sent to the other output devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82);
cause, via the second protocol, the synchrony group to begin synchronous playback of the media stream (again with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49);
receive, from the media source device via the first media playback protocol (can receive via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and system can also include various commands; page 6, paragraph 51), and implement an operation at the first playback device (receiver/first device can perform its own synchronized output of content; page 3, paragraph 32); and
cause, via the second media playback protocol, the second playback device to implement the operation (any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and with transmission to the devices via the different protocol; page 10, paragraph 82, and wherein for beginning and maintaining synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49).
While Le Nerriec does also disclose playback control commands (commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51), Le Nerriec does not explicitly disclose a first media playback protocol, and a second media playback protocol that is incompatible with the first media playback protocol;
based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command, and a second device to implement the command.
In a related art, Warrick does disclose a first media playback protocol, and a second media playback protocol that is incompatible with the first media playback protocol (with plurality of playback protocols, i.e. at least a first and a second; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 3, paragraph 46, and page 17, paragraph 192, and wherein the playback protocols are incompatible; page 17, paragraph 192).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Le Nerriec and Warrick by allowing different playback protocols to be utilized with the protocols and conversions already being performed in Le Nerriec, in order to provide an improved system and method for enabling certain network-based media sharing protocols to work between different devices by dynamically setting up a communication rule set in a computer network (Warrick; page 1, paragraph 9).
While Le Nerriec in view of Warrick does again also disclose commands (Le Nerriec; commands for implementation by the devices; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213), and implementation of the commands at second devices via a particular protocol (Warrick; can send the commands for implementation in the group; page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and wherein with converted/second protocol(s); page 5, paragraph 56, and Le Nerriec; can forward via second protocol; page 10, paragraph 82), Le Nerriec in view of Warrick does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implement the command.
In a related art, Lee does disclose based on receiving a command from a media source device, implementation of the command at a first device (commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and initial/first, device can receive from source and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89), and a second device to implement the command (second device(s) can receive the commands as well for initiation; page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Le Nerriec, Warrick, and Lee by allowing certain commands to be received from a source device and utilized for operations by multiple devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for synchronizing media playback between a sending media device and a receiving media device (Lee; page 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 4, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses the media source device is configured to use the first media playback protocol and the second media playback protocol (Warrick; proxy/source; page 18, paragraph 199, and wherein can utilize the multiple protocols; page 17, paragraph 192, and page 18, paragraph 203, and Le Nerriec; with at least the first protocol; page 2, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses the media source device comprises a control device configured to control the synchrony group (Warrick; proxy/source; page 18, paragraph 199, and wherein can include a controller/control device for controlling; Fig. 1, elements 102 and 212, and page 4, paragraph 49, and page 5, paragraph 60, and page 19, paragraph 211, and page 20, paragraph 213).
Regarding claim 8, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses receive, from the media source device via the first media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; communicating with source via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and Warrick; communicating with proxy/source with at least a first protocol; page 5, paragraphs 56-57), a grouping command that indicates at least one of (i) one or more playback devices to add to the synchrony group or (ii) one or more playback devices to remove from the synchrony group (Warrick; selection of devices to add to a sharing/network/synchrony group; page 2, paragraph 17, and pages 8-9, paragraph 98, and page 9, paragraph 100, and Le Nerriec; based on selections to add/remove devices into group in certain roles; page 6, paragraph 54); and
cause, via the second media playback protocol (Warrick; with converted/second protocol(s); page 5, paragraph 56, and Le Nerriec; can forward via second protocol; page 10, paragraph 82), the synchrony group to implement the grouping command by performing at least one of (i) adding one or more playback devices to the synchrony group or (ii) removing one or more playback devices from the synchrony group (Warrick; implementation with devices adding/joining to the sharing/network/synchrony group; page 2, paragraph 17, and pages 8-9, paragraph 98, and page 9, paragraph 100, and page 19, paragraph 211, and page 20, paragraph 213, and page 22, paragraph 229, and Le Nerriec; implementation with devices in the group based on selections to add/remove devices into group in certain roles; page 4, paragraph 34, and page 6, paragraph 54, and page 8, paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 9, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses the first playback device and the second playback device are both configured to use the first media playback protocol and the second media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; output device(s) can receive via one protocol and send via another protocol; page 7, paragraphs 56-57, and page 10, paragraph 92, and wherein can change roles, to allow the other devices to also receive and send via the multiple protocols; page 4, paragraph 34, and page 6, paragraph 54, and page 8, paragraph 64, and Warrick; devices can utilize the multiple protocols; page 17, paragraph 192, and page 18, paragraph 203).
Regarding claim 10, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses the first playback device and the second playback device are configured to perform synchronous playback of the media stream in the synchrony group (Le Nerriec; synchronized playback of the media with the output devices; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49) based on at least one of (i) playback control commands received by the first playback device from the media source device via the first media playback protocol, (ii) playback control commands received by the second playback device from the media source device via the first media playback protocol, (iii) playback control commands received by the first playback device via the second media playback protocol, or (iv) playback control commands received by the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and can receive via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and system can also include various commands; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and with at least a particular protocol from a plurality; page 17, paragraph 192, and page 18, paragraph 203, and Lee; commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and device(s) can receive and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89, and page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Regarding claim 11, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses transmit, to the media source device via the first media playback protocol, an indication of the synchrony group (Warrick; selection, i.e. indication, of devices to add to a sharing/network/synchrony group; page 2, paragraph 17, and pages 8-9, paragraph 98, and page 9, paragraph 100, and again with various, including a first, protocol(s); page 17, paragraph 192, and page 18, paragraph 203, and Le Nerriec; communication with source via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and selections, i.e. indication(s) to add/remove devices into group in certain roles; page 6, paragraph 54).
Claim 12, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions (Le Nerriec; including non-transitory memory; Fig. 6, element 606, and page 10, paragraph 91, and with processor executable instructions stored on the memory; page 10, paragraph 91).
Claim 15, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 4 and 5.
Claim 18, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 19, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 11.
Claim 20, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claim 21, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses cause the first playback device to transmit the playback control command to the second playback device via the second media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; any of the devices can receive and implement commands from leader, i.e. such as the receiver from the leader via the different protocol; page 6, paragraph 51, and can receive via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and system can also include various commands; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and with at least a particular protocol from a plurality; page 17, paragraph 192, and page 18, paragraph 203, and Lee; commands sent from source; page 4, paragraph 52, and device(s) can receive and initiate commands/playback; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraphs 58-59, and page 8, paragraph 89, and page 7, paragraphs 76, 79, and 81).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 in view of Warrick et al., US 2013/0346564 and Lee et al., US 2014/0010515, and further in view of Mantin, US 2015/0030022.
Regarding claim 3, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as after joining the synchrony group, cause the second playback device to perform an operation (Le Nerriec; can join and form group of media output devices via a second protocol; page 9, paragraphs 79-80, and wherein for performing an operation including at least synchronous playback; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 3, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 49), and the media source device (Le Nerriec; with media source device; page 3, paragraph 27).
Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee does not explicitly disclose disconnecting from a device.
In a related art, Mantin does disclose after joining, cause a device to disconnect from a source (upon connection, can disconnect device from a particular source; page 3, paragraphs 39-40, and page 5, paragraph 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Le Nerriec, Warrick, Lee, and Mantin by allowing disconnection of devices from particular sources that were not being used/needed, in order to provide an improved system and method for switching between streaming sources, such that double bandwidth consumption is avoided (Mantin; page 1, paragraph 12, and page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 40).
Claim 14, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Nerriec et al., US 2016/0150011 in view of Warrick et al., US 2013/0346564 and Lee et al., US 2014/0010515, and further in view of Srivastava et al., US 2013/0154791.
Regarding claim 7, Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the playback control command comprises a first playback control command (Le Nerriec; with at least various commands, i.e. a first; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and Lee with various received and input commands; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraph 59, and page 7, paragraphs 79 and 81, and page 8, paragraph 89), and receive, via the second media playback protocol, an indication of a second playback control command input at (i) the first playback device, (ii) the second playback device, or (iii) a control device configured to control the synchrony group (Le Nerriec; can receive via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and system can also include various commands, i.e. a second; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and Lee with various received and input commands; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraph 59, and page 7, paragraphs 79 and 81, and page 8, paragraph 89), and the first media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; can receive via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and Warrick; with at least a first protocol; page 5, paragraphs 56-57), and transmit to the media source device via the first media playback protocol (Le Nerriec; communicating with source via at least first protocol; page 9, paragraph 79, and Warrick; communicating with proxy/source with at least a first protocol; page 5, paragraphs 56-57).
While Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee does again disclose the second playback control command (Le Nerriec; system can also include various commands, i.e. a second; page 6, paragraph 51, and Warrick; commands can be issued from source(s); page 11, paragraph 119, and page 20, paragraph 213, and Lee with various received and input commands; page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraph 59, and page 7, paragraphs 79 and 81, and page 8, paragraph 89), Le Nerriec in view of Warrick and Lee does not explicitly disclose based on an indication of a playback control command, generate a converted playback control command that is compatible; and
transmit the converted playback control command to thereby cause a media source device to implement the converted playback control command.
In a related art, Srivastava does disclose based on an indication of a playback control command (based on specific remote control commands, including those relating to media playback operations, i.e. volume adjustments, channel changes, media selections, etc.; page 4, paragraphs 30-31), generate a converted playback control command that is compatible (can convert and generate command that is compatible for communication with the specific receiving device(s); page 2, paragraph 20, and page 4, paragraph 31); and
transmit the converted playback control command to thereby cause a media source device to implement the converted playback control command (can transmit the command to the specific device for implementation; page 2, paragraph 20, and page 4, paragraph 31, and again with control commands, including those relating to media playback operations, i.e. volume adjustments, channel changes, media selections, etc.; page 4, paragraphs 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Le Nerriec, Warrick, Lee, and Srivastava by allowing conversion of playback commands, in order to provide an improved system and method for facilitating remote control of an electronic device by converting remote control signals (Srivastava; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 15).
Claim 17, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights