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 . This Office action is based on the communications filed May 13, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi et al. (US 10,127,906 B1), hereinafter Mutagi. While obvious variations in wording are present claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 anticipate all of the claimed limitations except for those rendered obvious in view of Mutagi for the reasons presented below.
In regards to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 discloses a computing device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: control, via a first application, at least a first function of a playback device using a first attribute to identify the playback device (see, “A computing device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: control, via a first controller application, at least one function of a playback device using a first attribute to identify the playback device,” claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2); and
after receiving a second attribute (see, “after receiving the second attribute,” claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2) that is used by a second application to identify the playback device (see, “receive a second attribute used by a second controller application to identify the playback device,” claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2), control, via the first application, at least a second function of the playback device using the second attribute (see, “control, via the first controller application, the at least one function of the playback device using the second attribute to identify the playback device,” claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2). U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the second attribute is different from the first attribute. However, Mutagi discloses in regards to naming devices via voice commands a first attribute to identify the playback device and a second attribute to identify the playback device wherein the second attribute is different from the first attribute (see at least, “In addition to storing the functional identifier of the device, in some instances the remote service may be configured to identify one or more qualifiers from the audio signals and store these qualifiers in association with the respective devices. These qualifiers may comprise location qualifiers, device-type qualifiers, or the like,” Mutagi Column 3 Lines 59 – 34, “In addition to storing the name of the devices 104(1) and 104(2), the naming component 122 may identify one or more qualifiers, such as location qualifiers, device-type qualifiers, and the like. To do so, the naming component may be programmed with predefined location qualifiers (e.g., "upstairs", "downstairs", "bedroom", etc.) and device-type qualifiers (e.g., "voice-controlled device", "television", "telephone", etc.). In the example above, the naming component 122 may identify the location qualifiers "upstairs" and "bedroom", and may store these in association with the identifier of the device 104(2) in the user-account datastore 126,” Mutagi Column 12 Lines 16 – 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aforementioned features of Mutagi in the invention of US thereby allowing for the advantage of “many different ways… to allow users to interact with computing devices, Mutagi Column 1 Lines 7 – 10), i.e., through different qualifiers of the device.
In regards to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the first function of the playback device is the same as the second function of the playback device (see at least, “Further, while the following description describes assigning functional identifiers to devices in the terms of names or roles, it is to be appreciated that a functional identifier may include a name, a role and/or any other customer-specific information that causes a respective device to function in a particular manner relative to the device's default or previously-set configuration.
Further, each discussion below of assigning a name to a device may be applicable to assigning a role or other functional identifier to a device, and vice versa,” Column 9 Lines 27 – 36).
In regards to claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the first function of the playback device is different from the second function of the playback device (see at least, “Further, while the following description describes assigning functional identifiers to devices in the terms of names or roles, it is to be appreciated that a functional identifier may include a name, a role and/or any other customer-specific information that causes a respective device to function in a particular manner relative to the device's default or previously-set configuration.
Further, each discussion below of assigning a name to a device may be applicable to assigning a role or other functional identifier to a device, and vice versa,” Column 9 Lines 27 – 36).
In regards to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: receive the second attribute that is used by the second application to identify the playback device (see, “receive a second attribute used by a second controller application to identify the playback device,” claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
In regards to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second attribute is received from one or more of: the second application; a cloud computing system; an application programming interface; or a database of attributes (see, “The computing device of claim 1, wherein the second attribute is received from one or more of: the second controller application; a cloud computing system; an application programming interface; or a database of attributes,” claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
In regards to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein: the first application is non-native to the playback device; and the second application is native to the playback device (see, “The computing device of claim 1, wherein: the first controller application is non-native to the playback device; and the second controller application is native to the playback device,” claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
In regards to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein: the first application is native to the playback device; and the second application is non-native to the playback device (see, “The computing device of claim 1, wherein: the first controller application is non-native to the playback device; and the second controller application is native to the playback device,” claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
In regards to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2 in view of Mutagi disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to: after receiving a third attribute used by a third application to identify the playback device, control, via the first application, at least a third function of the playback device using the third attribute to identify the playback device (see at least, “In addition to storing the functional identifier of the device, in some instances the remote service may be configured to identify one or more qualifiers from the audio signals and store these qualifiers in association with the respective devices. These qualifiers may comprise location qualifiers, device-type qualifiers, or the like,” Mutagi Column 3 Lines 59 – 34, “In addition to storing the name of the devices 104(1) and 104(2), the naming component 122 may identify one or more qualifiers, such as location qualifiers, device-type qualifiers, and the like. To do so, the naming component may be programmed with predefined location qualifiers (e.g., "upstairs", "downstairs", "bedroom", etc.) and device-type qualifiers (e.g., "voice-controlled device", "television", "telephone", etc.). In the example above, the naming component 122 may identify the location qualifiers "upstairs" and "bedroom", and may store these in association with the identifier of the device 104(2) in the user-account datastore 126,” Mutagi Column 12 Lines 16 – 27).
Claims 9 – 16 are substantially similar in scope to claims 1 – 8, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons (see also, claims 10, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
Claims 17 – 20 are substantially similar in scope to claims 1 – 4, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons (see also, claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,769 B2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 4 p.m., EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at (571)270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH SAUNDERS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights