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 .
Application # 19/095,895 was filed on 3/31/2025.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 4/30/2025 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to claim 1, 9, 15 the claim recite “identifying a first user of a content sharing platform (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind; managing personal behavior or interactions including social activities and following rules); detecting an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. managing personal behavior or interactions including social activities and following rules and concepts performed in the human mind) because a user read the playlist that is written on the piece of paper, and present interest in adding that item; upon detecting the action, generating a playlist for the first user (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind & managing personal behavior or interactions including social activities and following rules) because media item can be added to generate a playlist which can be written on a piece of paper; providing playback of any media items which is certain methods of organizing human activity wherein user can playback a media items physically by signing or reading the lyrics.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite additional element a memory and a processing device to perform identifying, detecting, generating, providing steps. Furthermore, the storing the playlist is post solution activity. The processor and memory recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processing device, memory to perform identifying, detecting, generating and providing steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 respectively rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 7, 8, 9, 14, 14, 15, 16, 20, 20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,501,387 (hereinafter ‘387 Patent) in view of in view of Schupak et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0281977 (hereinafter Schupak) further in view of further in view of Kuper et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073584 (hereinafter Kuper)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other. Claims 1, 9, 15 respectively of the instant application and claims 1, 8, 15 respectively of the ‘387 patent contain similar subject matter as follows:
“identifying, by a processing device, a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items”
‘387 Patent does not teach detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items, wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user, wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user, subscribing to a channel of the second user, approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user; upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user, generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user, wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user, without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist; storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user; and upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist, providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user.
Schupak teaches detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items (i.e. adding a song to playlist (Paragraph 42-43), wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. adding a song form a second user’s playlist) (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 40, 42), wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user (i.e. first user to add a song from a second user’s playlist to playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40) and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user (i.e. first user adding the a song from the second user to playlist of the first user means, second user’s content is being shared)(Paragraph 40, 34, 42-43), subscribing to a channel of the second user (i.e. follow) (Paragraph 42-43), approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user;
upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user (Paragraph 40, 42, 43), generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 42), wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing. Another example/interpretation, is when user clicks on add for each on a playlist to facilitate adding songs from other user’s playlists)(Paragraph 37, 61-62);
storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user(i.e. user profile storing their own playlist including, adding song from other user’s playlist etc.) (Paragraph 34, 37, 18)
upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist (Paragraph 61-62), providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow (Paragraph 61-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Schupak’s teaching in ‘387 Patent’s teaching to come up with automatically modifying the playlist of the first user by automatically adding the at least one media of the second user to the playlist of the first user. The motivation for doing so would be to have collaborative playlist wherein songs from users music libraries which are likely to be preferred or enjoyed by as many users as possible or which satisfy a preference metric.
‘387 Patent and Schupak does not explicitly show without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in ‘387 Patent and Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17 respectively rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,963,973 (hereinafter ‘973 Patent) in view of in view of Schupak et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0281977 (hereinafter Schupak) further in view of further in view of Kuper et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073584 (hereinafter Kuper)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other. Claims 1, 9, 15 respectively of the instant application and claims 1, 7, 13 respectively of the ‘973 patent contain similar subject matter as follows:
“identifying, by a processing device, a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items”.
‘973 Patent does not teach detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items, wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user, wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user, subscribing to a channel of the second user, approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user; upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user, generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user, wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user, without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist; storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user; and upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist, providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user.
Schupak teaches detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items (i.e. adding a song to playlist (Paragraph 42-43), wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. adding a song form a second user’s playlist) (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 40, 42), wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user (i.e. first user to add a song from a second user’s playlist to playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40) and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user (i.e. first user adding the a song from the second user to playlist of the first user means, second user’s content is being shared)(Paragraph 40, 34, 42-43), subscribing to a channel of the second user (i.e. follow) (Paragraph 42-43), approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user;
upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user (Paragraph 40, 42, 43), generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 42), wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing. Another example/interpretation, is when user clicks on add for each on a playlist to facilitate adding songs from other user’s playlists)(Paragraph 37, 61-62);
storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user(i.e. user profile storing their own playlist including, adding song from other user’s playlist etc.) (Paragraph 34, 37, 18)
upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist (Paragraph 61-62), providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow (Paragraph 61-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Schupak’s teaching in ‘973 Patent’s teaching to come up with automatically modifying the playlist of the first user by automatically adding the at least one media of the second user to the playlist of the first user. The motivation for doing so would be to have collaborative playlist wherein songs from users music libraries which are likely to be preferred or enjoyed by as many users as possible or which satisfy a preference metric.
‘973 Patent and Schupak does not explicitly show without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in ‘973 Patent and Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, respectively rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 8, 13, 13, 14, 16, 18 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,023 (hereinafter ‘023 Patent)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other. Claims 1, 9, 15 respectively of the instant application and claims 1, 8, 14 respectively of the ‘023 patent contain similar subject matter as follows:
“identifying, by a processing device, a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items; detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items, wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user, wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user, subscribing to a channel of the second user, approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user; upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user, generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user, wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user, without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist; storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user; and upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist, providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schupak et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0281977 (hereinafter Schupak) further in view of Kuper et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073584 (hereinafter Kuper)
With respect to claim 1, Schupak teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
-identifying, by a processing device, a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items (i.e. user1’s playlist wherein the playlist contains songs and also add song from a second user’s playlist to a playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40-42) ;
- detecting, by the processing device, an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items (i.e. adding a song to playlist (Paragraph 42-43), wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. adding a song form a second user’s playlist) (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 40, 42), wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user (i.e. first user to add a song from a second user’s playlist to playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40) and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user (i.e. first user adding the a song from the second user to playlist of the first user means, second user’s content is being shared)(Paragraph 40, 34, 42-43), subscribing to a channel of the second user (i.e. follow) (Paragraph 42-43), approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user;
upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user (Paragraph 40, 42, 43), generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 42), wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing. Another example/interpretation, is when user clicks on add for each on a playlist to facilitate adding songs from other user’s playlists)(Paragraph 37, 61-62);
storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user(i.e. user profile storing their own playlist including, adding song from other user’s playlist etc.) (Paragraph 34, 37, 18)
upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist (Paragraph 61-62), providing, by the processing device, playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow (Paragraph 61-62).
Schupak does not explicitly show without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
With respect to claim 2, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches wherein the action performed by the first user further comprises a selection of a user interface (UI) option indicating subscription to a subset of media items of the second user, or a selection of a UI option indicating approval of the at least one media item (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing ) (Paragraph 40, 61-62)
With respect to claim 3, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches further comprising: prior to automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user: accessing preference information provided by the first user (i.e. preferred music genre, their geographic location, their favorite of usually way of listening to music etc.)(Paragraph 32, 34) and determining that the at least one media item of the second user satisfies the preference information provided by the first user (i.e. based on preferred genre, location of the user who uploaded the songs(Paragraph 32, 34, 61-62 )
With respect to claim 4, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches wherein the subset of media items of the second user represents a channel of the second user or a playlist of the second user (i.e. another user or second user’s playlist)(Paragraph 40, 61-62)
With respect to claim 6, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches further comprising: modifying, by the processing device, the playlist of the first user by automatically adding at least one media item of a third user to the playlist of the first user (Paragraph 40, 42, 61-62)
Schupak does not teach wherein the playlist of the first user is modified automatically without the first user selecting the at least one media item of the third user for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user is modified automatically without the first user selecting the at least one media item of the third user for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
With respect to claim 7, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches wherein the action performed by the first user further comprises a request to add the second user to a set of social connections of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing)(Paragraph 61-62)
With respect to claim 8, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches wherein the request to add the second user to the set of social connections of the first user pertains to the content sharing platform or to a platform other than the content sharing platform (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing)(Paragraph 61-62).
With respect to claim 9, Schupak teaches a system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, coupled to the memory, to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items (i.e. user1’s playlist wherein the playlist contains songs and also add song from a second user’s playlist to a playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40-42) ;
detecting an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items, (i.e. adding a song to playlist (Paragraph 42-43), wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. adding a song form a second user’s playlist) (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 40, 42), wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user (i.e. first user to add a song from a second user’s playlist to playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40) and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user (i.e. first user adding the a song from the second user to playlist of the first user means, second user’s content is being shared)(Paragraph 40, 34, 42-43), subscribing to a channel of the second user (i.e. follow) (Paragraph 42-43), approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user;
upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user(Paragraph 40, 42, 43), generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 42), wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing. Another example/interpretation, is when user clicks on add for each on a playlist to facilitate adding songs from other user’s playlists)(Paragraph 37, 61-62);
- storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user (i.e. user profile storing their own playlist including, adding song from other user’s playlist etc.) (Paragraph 34, 37, 18)
upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist (Paragraph 61-62), providing playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow (Paragraph 61-62).
Schupak does not explicitly show without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
With respect to claims 10, 12-14 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 3, 6-8 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
With respect to claim 15, Schupak teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
-identifying a first user of a content sharing platform, wherein the content sharing platform comprises a plurality of media items (i.e. user1’s playlist wherein the playlist contains songs and also add song from a second user’s playlist to a playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40-42) ;
-detecting an action performed by the first user with respect to a subset of media items of the plurality of media items (i.e. adding a song to playlist (Paragraph 42-43), wherein the subset of media items comprises at least one media item of a second user (i.e. adding a song form a second user’s playlist) (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 40, 42), wherein the action performed by the first user indicates interest of the first user in the at least one media item of the second user (i.e. first user to add a song from a second user’s playlist to playlist owned by the first user)(Paragraph 40) and comprises at least one of sharing content of the second user (i.e. first user adding the a song from the second user to playlist of the first user means, second user’s content is being shared)(Paragraph 40, 34, 42-43), subscribing to a channel of the second user (i.e. follow) (Paragraph 42-43) approving a comment of the second user, commenting on a post of the second user, or indicating approval of content of the second user;
-upon detecting the action performed by the first user with respect to the at least one media item of the second user Paragraph 40, 42, 43), generating, by the processing device, a playlist for the first user (Fig. 3)(Paragraph 42), wherein generating the playlist for the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item of the second user to the playlist of the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow which are played after that user’s playlist is finished playing. Another example/interpretation, is when user clicks on add for each on a playlist to facilitate adding songs from other user’s playlists)(Paragraph 37, 61-62);-storing, at the content sharing platform, the playlist of the first user; and
-upon a request of the first user for the stored playlist, providing playback of any media item from the stored playlist to the first user (i.e. a user may choose to play randomly selected songs from playlists owned by users they follow (Paragraph 61-62).
Schupak does not explicitly show without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist.
Kuper teaches wherein the playlist of the first user comprises automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist (i.e. playback engine can automatically add the file to the playlist at a playback device of the specified user wherein the playback engine will queue the song for immediate play at the playback device) (Paragraph 80-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kuper’s teaching in Schupak’s teaching to come up with automatically adding the at least one media item without the first user without the first user consuming device resources to select the at least one media item for the playlist. The motivation for doing so would be using new connection’s history recommending new songs and playing them on the playback device of the first/other user.
With respect to claims 16, 18-20 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 3, 6-8 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schupak et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0281977 (hereinafter Schupak) further in view of Kuper et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073584 (hereinafter Kuper) further in view of Gavade et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0290402 (hereinafter Gavade)
With respect to claim 5, Schupak and Kuper teaches method of claim 1, but Schupak further teaches further comprising: deleting the playlist of the first user in response to determining that the first user has not viewed a media item from the playlist of the first user for a threshold period of time.
Gavade teaches deleting the playlist of the first user in response to determining that the first user has not viewed a media item from the playlist of the first user for a threshold period of time. (Paragraph 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gavade’s teaching in Schupak and Kuper’s teaching to come up with deleting playlist in response to user not viewing the playlist for a threshold period of time. The motivation for doing so would free up the buffer after buffer threshold has reached certain age, therefore new playlist can be created and shared with the user.
With respect to claims 11, 17, they recite similar subject matter as claim 5, therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Willis et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0031162 which in Paragraph 245 teaches customized group interaction and playlist generation responsive to user preferences.
B). Rasmussen et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073983 which in Paragraph 75 teaches user playing a songs that was shared within the newsfeed stream of stories on the social networking system.
C). Baron et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0229215 which teaches providing a virtual social environment for user and enable first user to host multimedia on the social environment and invite a second user by the first user for synchronous participation.
D). Rasmussen et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0073983 which in Paragraph 147 teaches about having plurality of playlists wherein playlist are modified based on user action/like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights