DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on July 17, 2026.
Amendments filed on July 17, 2026 have been acknowledged and considered.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 17, 2026. has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Remarks, filed July 17, 2026, has been fully considered and entered.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. In light of Applicant amendments, the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments pages 9-10, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to amended independent claims 1, 9 and 17 have been fully considered, are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Argument 1: Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Martin fails to disclose “determining a similarity score for each candidate media item based on a comparison of extracted media information and corresponding metadata for each candidate." Martin's compatibility service merely identifies compatible songs as described above, and then populates a compatibility hierarchy with songs at different compatibility levels. See Martin at [0048]-[0051]. The compatibility hierarchy in Martin is organized according to predefined categories of relatedness (e.g., bitwise identical, reproduction, alternate performance, different performance, variation), rather than by calculating a similarity score for each candidate based on metadata comparison.”
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Martin teaches the argued-amended claim limitation. Martin claim 3 recites “determining a compatibility score for the matching track based at least in part on the plurality of compatibility levels”. Martin claim 1 teaches that the measure is obtained from the two sided metadata comparison the claim recites, reciting compatibility levels “based at least in part on the respectively corresponding metadata of the at least one track and second metadata corresponding to respective tracks of the second library of music tracks [e.g. corresponding metadata for each candidate media item].
Further Martin [0050] discloses “a form of Rabin chunking to determine degree of similarity between a plurality of songs”, and “an edit distance algorithm… to account for minor differences in metadata” which is “associated with a plurality of thresholds below or above which a song may be considered compatible”. An edit distance computed between the metadata of the media item and the metadata of a candidate, and compared against a threshold is a similarity score determined from a metadata comparison. Martin paragraphs [0046-0047] disclose that “the hierarchy may be organized in terms if descending compatibility with “the most compatible media files… in a first position, with less compatible media files occupying subsequent positions” and “a ranked list”. Thus, an ordering degree of compatibility requires a compatibility measure for each candidate in the set.
Thus, Martin teaches determining a similarity score for each candidate media item based on a comparison of extracted media information and corresponding metadata for each candidate.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 9 that “Martin fails to disclose "generating a search query based on extracted media information." Rather, Martin's compatibility service instead identifies compatible songs by looking to "the title or arrangement of the song given by the users" or by "analyz[ing] the metadata associated with the song" to determine the song's identity. Nothing in Martin indicates that a search query is used based on extracted media information.”
Response to Argument 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees and further notes that this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Martin paragraphs [0048, 0062] disclose that “the compatibility service 304 may analyze the metadata associated with the song selected by the users… for example, information relating to title, artist, album, year, comment, track number, genre, speed, start-time and/or end-time of each song [e.g. extracted media information]. This information may be adequate for the compatibility service 304 to identify the song. After which, the compatibility service 304 may begin to look [Thus, to search] for compatible or related songs within the media content servers 210 to be included in the compatibility hierarchy” and that “At 406, process 400 may search a second library of music tracks” and that “compatibility levels which may be based at least in part on corresponding metadata of the one or more tracks identified in step 402” Martin claim 1 also recites “searching a second library of music tracks associated with a second music service for a matching track”
Martin does not explicitly disclose extracted metadata values formulated and submitted as a query. However, Platt teaches inexact matching between identifying metadata associated with new user items and identifying metadata stored in a reference metadata database, where the identifying metadata may include an artist name, an album name and a track name [e.g. the extracted media information], and further identifies an item that a user desires to add to a media library by split artist name into words, canonicalize words, where for each artist word it increment user song artist vote for user song artist names that contain artist word, and based on this it select user songs whose track name matches first N characters of reference track name [e.g. generate a search query based on the extracted media information]. Thus, Martin in view of Platt teaches generating a search query based on extracted media information. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argues on page 9 that “Martin also fails to disclose adding one or more of the set of candidate media items to a second media library "based on the similarity score for the one or more of the set of candidate media items.”
Response to Argument 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Martin teaches the argued-amended claim limitation. Martin [0062] disclose that it may populate playlist(s) with the matching track(s) identified at 406 such that the playlist generated by the first music service at 402 is playable with respective tracks of the second library of music tracks [e.g. adding candidate media items to a second media library on the destination media service]. Martin [0029-0030] further disclose that the resulting playlist 116 may be a playlist comprising those songs from the compatibility library 114 that may be most compatible with songs included in the playlist 102… the web-based music service 112 may not have identified a song adequately compatible to this track... Thus, having not met a threshold degree of compatibility [Thus, conditioned on its compatibility measure (e.g. similarity score)], a track compatible with track number “6” of the playlist 102 may not be included in the resulting playlist 116 [Thus, based on the similarity score for the one or more of the set of candidate media items]. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 1 recites “generating a search query” and “identifying a set of candidate media items… based on the search query” as steps separate from and prior to “performing the matching operation using the set of candidate media items”. Claim 4 recites that “performing the matching operation comprises” and reintroduces “a search query” for which claims 1 already provides antecedent basis. Examiner request clarification from Applicant as it is unclear whether claims 4 recite a second, distinct query and identifying steps or merely restates claim 1 (In such case claims 4, 11 and 20 may be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(d) as failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend). This limitation confuses the antecedent basis for “a search query”, and renders the scope unclear. Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same reason with respect to claim 9 and 17 respectively. For the purpose of examination, “a search query” is interpreted to be “the search query”.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 1 already recite “determining a similarity score for each of the set of candidate media items”. Claim 6 recite “determining a similarity score for a particular media item of the plurality of media items with a plurality of corresponding candidate media items”. It is unclear whether this is the same score or whether “a particular media item” is the “first media item” of claim 1. This limitation confuses the antecedent basis for “a similarity score”, and renders the scope unclear. Claim 13 is also rejected for the same reason with respect to claim 9. For the purpose of examination, “a similarity score” is interpreted to be “the similarity score”.
Claim 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Amended claim 1 recites “a first media item of the plurality of media items” for which candidates are scored and added to a second media library. Claim 7 the recites “identifying a first media item of the plurality of media items which remain unmatched”. It is unclear whether the two are the same item, and the two recitations conflict: claim 1’s first media item results in candidates being added(matched), and claim 7’s first media item remains unmatched. Claim 14 is also rejected for the same reason with respect to claim 9. For the purpose of examination, “a first media item” is interpreted to be “a media item of the plurality of media items”.
Claims 11, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. “the matching operation” in claims 11, 14, 15 and 20 lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination the “matching operation” in claims 11, 14, 15 and 20 is interpreted as the identifying step of claims 9 and 17 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20150113022 A1) in view of Platt (US Patent Publication No. US 7296031 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin-Platt teaches a method comprising: receiving media metadata encoding characteristics of each of a plurality of media items associated with a first media library for a user on a source media service; (See Martin [0062] “The process 400 begins by identifying a first library [e.g. a first media library] of music tracks at 402… the music tracks may be associated with a music service [e.g. source media service]… the music tracks may include metadata [i.e. media metadata encoding characteristics of each of a plurality of media items]. At 404, the process 400 may receive, by the media content servers 210 or by one or more computers comprising the media content servers 210, playlists comprising the one or more of the music tracks [Thus, receiving media metadata encoding characteristics of each of a plurality of media items associated with a first media library for a user on a source media service] of step 402.” See also Martin [0025-0027] “While the user library 104 and the playlist 102 are shown to include three types of identifying information (i.e., “Artist,” “Song” and “Other Info.”), it is understood that local music service 108 may store more or less identifying information. The identifying information may be metadata [Thus, metadata encoding characteristics of each of a plurality of media items] stored in connection with the audio tracks from the user library 104…The playlist 102 [e.g. plurality of media items associated with a first media library], in this example, may be created by user 106 from the user library 104 [e.g. first media library]. In other examples, the user library 104 may be stored in the local music service 108 [e.g. source media service]… the user 106 [e.g. a user] may desire to transfer or move the playlist 102 from the local music service 108 [e.g. source media service] to web-based music service 112 [e.g. destination media service]”)
and for a first media item of the plurality of media items: (See Martin claim 1 “for at least one track of the one or more tracks [e.g. for a first media item of the plurality of media items] of the playlist, searching a second library of music tracks” See also Martin [0028] “the web-based music service 112 may establish a compatibility hierarchy for each song included in the playlist 102”)
extracting, from the media metadata, media information for a plurality of media information types for the first media item, (See Martin [0048] “the compatibility service 304 may analyze the metadata associated with the song selected by the users 202 to be included in the playlist [e.g. extracting from the media metadata]. Such an analysis may reveal, for example, information relating to title, artist, album, year, comment, track number, genre, speed, start-time and/or end-time of each song [i.e. media information for a plurality of media information types, extracted for the song under consideration (e.g. the first media item)]”)
generating a search query based on the extracted media information, identifying a set of candidate media items on a destination media service based on the search query, (See Martin [0045, 0048] “For each media file selected by users 202 to be included in a particular playlist, the compatibility service 304 may populate and store in the compatibility hierarchy storage 314 a group or set of compatible media files [e.g. a set of candidate media items]… the compatibility service 304 may determine compatibility or relatedness of a first media file selected by the users 202 (e.g., to compile a playlist) to a set of media files stored in the storage 224, on the media content servers 210 [e.g. candidates residing on the destination media service]… This information [i.e. extracted media information (e.g. title/artist/album/track number extracted above)] may be adequate for the compatibility service 304 to identify the song. After which, the compatibility service 304 may begin to look for [e.g. search] compatible or related songs within the media content servers 210 [i.e. the extracted media information is the basis on which search of the destination service is made]” See also Martin [0062] “At 406, process 400 may search a second library of music tracks… The compatibility hierarchy may comprise… a plurality of compatibility levels which may be based at least in part on corresponding metadata of the one or more tracks identified in step 402”)
Martin does not explicitly describes how the metadata values are formulated into and submitted as a query.
However, Platt teaches generating a search query based on the extracted media information, identifying a set of candidate media items based on the search query. (See Platt abstract “The method includes inexact matching between identifying metadata associated with new user items and identifying metadata stored in a reference metadata database.” See also Platt col. 6, lines 62-67, Col. 7, lines 1-11 “For a song, the identifying metadata 240 may include an artist name 250, an album name 260 and a track name 270 [e.g. the extracted media information]… Such metadata (e.g., artist, album, track) can be employed to generate unique identifiers. Since the metadata may vary between metadata databases, inexact matching between items may be required.” See also Platt col. 14, lines 11-47 “The following pseudocode implements the example method for identifying an item that a user desires to add to a media library… Split artist name into words, canonicalize words… For each artist word Increment user song artist vote for user song artist names that contain artist word… Select user songs whose track name matches first N characters of reference track name [e.g. generate a search query based on the extracted media information]” See also Platt col. , lines “After the artist words have been processed, the scores for the user songs that received at least one vote are computed [e.g. identifying a set of candidate media items based on the search query]. If the artist matching score is above a threshold (e.g., 0.7)… the artist identifier of the user item is assigned to be the artist identifier of the reference track.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the searching of the second library of Martin to generate a search query from the extracted media information and to identify the set of candidate media items from the results of that query, as taught by Platt.
One would be motivated to do so to identify the matching track at the second music service even thought the metadata of the two services may differ or be incomplete, since Platt teaches that since the metadata may vary between metadata databases, inexact matching between items may be required, and metadata may be incomplete, Platt facilitates performing inexact matching with such incomplete data.
Martin further in view of Platt, [hereinafter Martin-Platt] additionally disclose performing a matching operation using the set of candidate media items and the extracted media information for the first media item, (See Martin [0028] “compatibility may be determined by analyzing each song in the playlist 102 [e.g. using the extracted media information for the first media item] and comparing the results of the analysis to a library of songs [e.g. using the set of candidate media items] held by the provider of the web-based music service 112 to determine similarities and differences between the songs [Thus, a matching operation is performed using the set of candidate media items and the extracted media information for the first media item].” See also Martin [0051, 0064] “Once the compatibility service 304 has identified the song selected by the users 202 to be included in the playlist, the compatibility service 304 may determine the compatibility of the song to those stored on the media content servers 210… The compatibility hierarchies may… search files of the second service for exact match(es), for reproduction match(es) when no exact match(es) are found, for alternate match(es) when no production match(es) are found, for different match(es)… and/or for variation match(es) [e.g. matching operation]”)
determining a similarity score for each of the set of candidate media items based on a comparison of the extracted media information for the first media item and corresponding metadata for each candidate media item, and (See Martin [0050] “the compatibility service 304 may utilize a form of Rabin chunking to determine degree of similarity between a plurality of songs [e.g. a similarity score determined across the plurality of candidates]… 304 may utilize an edit distance algorithm to account for spelling, formatting and/or other minor differences between lyrics and to account for minor differences in metadata [e.g. based on a comparison of the extracted media information]. The edit distance algorithm may be associated with a plurality of thresholds below or above which a song may be considered compatible, or at least to fall within a level of compatibility.” See also Martin claim 3 “further comprising determining a compatibility score for the matching track based at least in part on the plurality of compatibility levels [e.g. determining a similarity score]” See also Marin claim 1 “the compatibility hierarchy comprising a plurality of compatibility levels based at least in part on the respectively corresponding metadata of the at least one track [e.g. the extracted media information for the first media item] and second metadata corresponding to respective tracks of the second library of music tracks [e.g. corresponding metadata for each candidate media item]” See also Martin [0046-0047] “the hierarchy may be organized in terms of descending compatibility. Thus… the most compatible media files identified by the compatibility service 304 may be in a first position, with less compatible media files occupying subsequent positions… the compatibility hierarchy may comprise a ranked list of compatibility measures”)
adding one or more of the set of candidate media items to a second media library for the user on the destination media service based on the similarity score for the one or more of the set of candidate media items. (See Martin [0062] “At 408, process 400 may populate playlist(s) with the matching track(s) identified at 406 such that the playlist generated by the first music service at 402 is playable with respective tracks of the second library of music tracks [e.g. adding candidate media items to a second media library on the destination media service]” See also Martin [0029-0030] “the resulting playlist 116 may be a playlist comprising those songs from the compatibility library 114 that may be most compatible with songs included in the playlist 102… the web-based music service 112 may not have identified a song adequately compatible to this track... Thus, having not met a threshold degree of compatibility, a track compatible with track number “6” of the playlist 102 may not be included in the resulting playlist 116 [Thus, based on the similarity score for the one or more of the set of candidate media items]” See also [0052, 0023] “the users 202 may designate… a threshold degree of compatibility desired such that songs which do not attain the designated threshold and/or do not have any degree of match may be automatically excluded… The user may then decide whether the degree of compatibility is acceptable and if so may purchase the matching song from the new service or add it to a playlist located in the new service [e.g. added item at the destination service]” See also Martin [0019] “a user may own or have access to a media library comprising electronic content items”)
Regarding claim 2, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the media items comprise at least one selected from a group consisting of songs, videos and playlists. (See Martin [0022, 0025] “The playlist may include one or more songs… Irrespective of how the user created the playlist, the songs included in the playlist may have identifying characteristics or information… along with metadata stored as part of the audio file (e.g., artist, album, song title, year of recording, etc.)… playlist 102 may be created from electronic content files (e.g., audio tracks, video files, etc.)”
Regarding claim 3, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, further comprising: determining a match state for one or more of the plurality of media items; and (See Martin [0064] “The compatibility hierarchies may, in some examples, search files [e.g. plurality of media items] of the second service for exact match(es) [e.g. determining a match state for one or more of the plurality of media items], for reproduction match(es) when no exact match(es) are found, for alternate match(es) when no production match(es) are found, for different match(es) when no alternate match(es) are found and/or for variation match(es) when no different match(es) are found.
triggering the one or more of the set of candidate media items to be added to the second media library in accordance with the match state. (See Martin [0017] “the user may generate a playlist while accessing the first music service that includes songs sourced from the first music service. The second music service may then be configured to receive the music playlist from the user and attempt to match songs of the second music service in order to play the songs of the music playlist… the second music service may look through a library of the second music service for exact bit matches [e.g. match state] of each track of the playlist. Songs that match [e.g. set of candidate media items] at this level will be included the new playlist. [Thus, triggering the one or more of the set of candidate media items to be added to the second media library in accordance with the match state]”)
Regarding claim 4, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 1, wherein the performing the matching operation comprises generating a search query for the destination media service using the extracted media information and identifying the set of candidate media items from a response to the search query, which correspond to the search query and the identifying limitations of claim 1. The supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 4. Martin further teaches that the searching and the matching are the same operation. (See Martin claim 1 “searching a second library of music tracks associated with a second music service for a matching track [Thus, the matching operation comprises the searching]” See also Martin [0062] “At 406, process 400 may search a second library of music tracks… At 408, process 400 may populate playlist(s) with the matching track(s) identified at 406 [e.g. identifying the set of candidate media items from a response to the search query]”)
Regarding claim 5, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 4, wherein the media information comprises at least one of a group consisting of a title version, artist, and album. (See Martin [0022] “the songs included in the playlist may have identifying characteristics or information including, for example, identifiers inherent to the recording (e.g., length of audio recording [e.g. duration], audio granularity, etc.), along with metadata stored as part of the audio file (e.g., artist, album, song title, year of recording, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 6, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 4, further comprising: determining a similarity score for a particular media item of the plurality of media items with a plurality of corresponding candidate media items; (See Martin [0048-0051], claim 1 “the compatibility service 304 may determine the identity of the media file (e.g., song) selected by the user and next determine the compatibility levels… After which, the compatibility service 304 may begin to look for compatible or related songs [e.g. a particular media item of the plurality of corresponding candidate media items] within the media content servers 210 to be included in the compatibility hierarchy… the compatibility service 304 may utilize a form of Rabin chunking to determine degree of similarity [i.e. similarity score] between a plurality of songs [Thus, determining similarity score for a particular media item of the plurality of media items with a plurality of corresponding candidate media items]… the results of the compatibility determination may be stored in the compatibility hierarchy storage 314 and divided into compatibility levels… the matching track [e.g. a particular media item of the plurality of media items with a plurality of corresponding candidate media items] identified based at least in part on a compatibility hierarchy [Thus, determining a similarity score], the compatibility hierarchy comprising a plurality of compatibility levels based at least in part on the respectively corresponding metadata of the at least one track and second metadata corresponding to respective tracks of the second library of music tracks;”)
ranking the corresponding candidate media items based on the similarity score; and selecting a matching candidate media item based on the rank. (See Martin [0047, 0056] “the compatibility hierarchy [Thus, based on the similarity score] may comprise a ranked list of compatibility measures [Thus, ranking the corresponding candidate media items based on the similarity score]. According to this embodiment, compatibility measures may comprise differing degrees of match [i.e. matching candidate media item] (e.g., exact match, reproduced item match, alternate and same item match, alternate and different item match, different performance item match and/or variation item match)… The recommendation service 308 of the architecture 300 may, according to some embodiments, present to the users 202 with opportunities to select songs [e.g. selecting a matching candidate media item]. For example, according to one embodiment, the recommendation service 308 may provide the users 202 with a palette of recommended songs. These songs may, according to some embodiments, have been processed by the compatibility service 304 and/or arranged in the compatibility hierarchy storage 314 [Thus, matching candidate media item based on the rank]. Thus, in some embodiments, the users 202 may be presented with recommended songs arranged by compatibility (e.g., within a set of compatibility levels).”)
Regarding claim 7, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, identifying a first media item of the plurality of media items which remain unmatched after the matching operation is performed; (See Martin [0023] “If a threshold degree of compatibility is not met, the song [Thus, identifying a first media item of the plurality of media items which remain unmatched after the matching operation] may be retained in the playlist for the possibility of a future match.”)
determining one or more media items of the set of candidate media items for the first media item; presenting an indication of the one or more media items for user selection; and upon receiving a selection of one of the one or more media items, adding the selected one of the one or more media items to the media library. (See Martin [0030] “having not met a threshold degree of compatibility [e.g. for the first media item], a track compatible with track number “6” of the playlist 102 may not be included in the resulting playlist 116. However, the web-based music service 112 may provide the user 106 with an option to include the song in a “wish list.” According to embodiments described herein, a “wish list” may be used to collect and store those songs (or other electronic content items) [e.g. determining one or more media items of the set of candidate media items for the first media item] desired by a user (e.g., to be included in an existing or new playlist) [Thus, adding the selected one of the one or more media items to the media library], but which are not currently available in the web-based music service 112. The user 106 may place [Thus, upon receiving a selection of one of the one or more media items] the unavailable track into a “wish list” [Thus, presenting an indication of the one or more media items for user selection] by clicking hyperlinked text, dragging and dropping the text to a specific location and the like.”)
Regarding claim 8, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the media metadata comprises playlist metadata corresponding to a playlist from the source media service, wherein the playlist metadata comprises metadata for a plurality of media items belonging to the playlist, and wherein the metadata for each of the plurality of media items comprises a sequence number indicative of a track order of the playlist. (See Martin [0025-0027] “playlist 102 may be created from electronic content files (e.g., audio tracks, video files, etc.) [i.e. plurality of media items belonging to the playlist] found in user library 104. While the user library 104 and the playlist 102 [Thus, corresponding to a playlist from the source media service] are shown to include three types of identifying information (i.e., “Artist,” “Song” and “Other Info.”), it is understood that local music service 108 [e.g. source media service] may store more… identifying information [e.g. a sequence number indicative of a track order of the playlist]. The identifying information may be metadata [Thus, playlist metadata corresponding to a playlist from the source media service, wherein the playlist metadata comprises metadata for a plurality of media items belonging to the playlist] stored in connection with the audio tracks from the user library 104… the user 106 may desire to transfer or move the playlist 102 from the local music service 108 [i.e. source media service] to web-based music service 112.” See also Martin Fig. 1 disclosing a plurality of songs (i.e. media items) in playlist 102, each having a sequence number (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) indicative of a track order of the playlist.)
PNG
media_image1.png
313
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 3 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 4 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 5 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 6 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 7 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 7 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Martin-Platt teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the matching operation is performed concurrently with the one or more of the set of candidate media items being added to a second media library. (See Martin [0060-0062] “FIGS. 4-6 illustrate example flow diagrams showing respective processes 400-600 for managing media content across services… any number of the described operations can be combined in any order and/or in parallel [Thus, performed concurrently] to implement the processes… At 408, process 400 may populate playlist(s) with the matching track(s) [e.g. the matching operation is performed concurrently] identified at 406 such that the playlist generated by the first music service at 402 is playable with respective tracks of the second library of music tracks. At 410, process 400 may enable the second music service to play the respective tracks of the second library of music tracks utilizing the playlist. [Thus, with the one or more of the set of candidate media items being added to a second media library].
Regarding claim 16, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 8 in method form rather than computer readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 2 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 3 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Martin-Platt teaches all of the elements of claim 4 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Golightly et al. (US 20240012847 A1) discloses a device that stores a playback history that includes information about media items that have been previously been consumed by a user of a media providing service, where the device received a request to search for media content and determines the search criteria by parsing the request, generates a vector representation of the user using media items from the playback history that are relevant to the search criteria and generates a query that includes the search criteria and the generated vector, where a search engine or search index retrieves results from a content library that satisfies the query, and selects media items based on their respective scores. Pertinent to claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, 17 and 20.
Gates et al. (US 20120233167 A1) discloses receiving by a server user data related to personal media inventory, where the user data comprises identifying information regarding individual media items in a user’s library in the form of metadata, where the server identifies the user data as specific media items based on metadata, where each media item is associated with a unique identifier and used for media lookup for identification of track data, where media items are looked based on similarity and similarity data is used to generate clusters of media items and playlists, where similar media items are selected as candidates for inclusion to the playlist. Pertinent to claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 16-17 and 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights