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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 20 May 2025.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2025 has being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10992719, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11736540, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12021909 and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12341834. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to establishing voice communication link between users accessing media asset at the same time. Therefore, reasons for modifying the patented claims would have been to seek a broader patent protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASPI, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031192 A1 in view of Liu et al., WO 2015/149613 A1.
Regarding claim 1, CASPI discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a first device of a first user profile (see CASPI, fig.2 item 202, ¶ [0007], [0098] and [0131]; first device associated with first user profile is identified); identifying a second device of a second user profile (see CASPI, fig. 2 item, 204, ¶ [0008] and [0098]; second device associated with user profile is identified); determining that a media asset is being accessed using the first device (see CASPI, ¶ [0013] and [0047]; multimedia is accessed for viewing); causing a voice communication link to be established between the first device and the second device (see CASPI, ¶ [0035] and [0039]; voice communication is established between the first and second devices).
Although CASPI discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose and based on determining that a volume of audio received at the second device via the voice communication link exceeds a threshold, causing a volume of audio output at the second device to be decreased.
Liu teaches and based on determining that a volume of audio received at the second device via the voice communication link exceeds a threshold, causing a volume of audio output at the second device to be decreased (see Liu, ¶ [0006], [0043] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with that of CASPI in order to remotely adjust the second device volume as needed.
Regarding 2, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the threshold is a first threshold, the method further comprising: based on determining that a volume of audio received at the first device via the voice communication link is less than a second threshold, causing a volume of audio output at the first device to be increased (see Liu, ¶ [0043] and [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
Regarding 3, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the media asset is being consumed at the second device when the volume of the audio output at the second device is caused to be decreased (see CASPI, ¶ [0013] and Liu, ¶ [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
Regarding 4, CASPI-Liu teaches further comprising: receiving, via the first device, an input requesting to establish the voice communication link with the second device, wherein causing the voice communication link to be established is based at least in part on the received input (see CASPI, ¶ [0009]).
Regarding 5, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the voice communication link is established using a videotelephony application (see CASPI, ¶ [0004] and [0035]).
Regarding 6, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the media asset is a television program, an on-demand program, a video clip, an audio clip, a picture, a document, a website, an article, a social media post, or an application (see CASPI, ¶ [0035]).
Regarding 7, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein each of the first device and the second device is a computer or smart phone (see CASPI, fig. 1 and ¶ [0034]).
Regarding 8, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the first device is in a first environment and the second device is in a second environment that is remote from the first device (see CASPI, fig. 3 and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding 9, CASPI-Liu teaches further comprising: determining an interest level associated with a current portion of the media asset, wherein the threshold is determined based at least in part on the interest level (see CASPI, ¶ [0047] and [0103]).
Regarding 10, CASPI-Liu teaches further comprising: causing the second device to display a notification indicating that the volume of audio output at the second device has been decreased (see Liu, ¶ [0049]-[0050] and [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, CASPI discloses a system comprising: control circuitry configured to: identify a first device of a first user profile (see CASPI, fig.2 item 202, ¶ [0007], [0098] and [0131]; first device associated with first user profile is identified); identify a second device of a second user profile (see CASPI, fig. 2 item, 204, ¶ [0008] and [0098]; second device associated with user profile is identified); determine that a media asset is being accessed using the first device (see CASPI, ¶ [0013] and [0047]; multimedia is accessed for viewing); cause a voice communication link to be established between the first device and the second device (see CASPI, ¶ [0035] and [0039]; voice communication is established between the first and second devices).
Although CASPI discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose and based on determining that a volume of audio received at the second device via the voice communication link exceeds a threshold, cause a volume of audio output at the second device to be decreased.
Liu teaches and based on determining that a volume of audio received at the second device via the voice communication link exceeds a threshold, cause a volume of audio output at the second device to be decreased (see Liu, ¶ [0006], [0043] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with that of CASPI in order to remotely adjust the second device volume as needed.
Regarding 12, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the threshold is a first threshold, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: based on determining that a volume of audio received at the first device via the voice communication link is less than a second threshold, cause a volume of audio output at the first device to be increased (see Liu, ¶ [0043] and [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding 13, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the media asset is being consumed at the second device when the volume of the audio output at the second device is caused to be decreased (see CASPI, ¶ [0013] and Liu, ¶ [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding 14, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: receive, via the first device, an input requesting to establish the voice communication link with the second device, wherein causing the voice communication link to be established is based at least in part on the received input (see CASPI, ¶ [0009]).
Regarding 15, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the voice communication link is established using a videotelephony application (see CASPI, ¶ [0004] and [0035]).
Regarding 16, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the media asset is a television program, an on-demand program, a video clip, an audio clip, a picture, a document, a website, an article, a social media post, or an application (see CASPI, ¶ [0035]).
Regarding 17, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein each of the first device and the second device is a computer or smart phone (see CASPI, fig. 1 and ¶ [0034]).
Regarding 18, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the first device is in a first environment and the second device is in a second environment that is remote from the first device (see CASPI, fig. 3 and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding 19, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: determine an interest level associated with a current portion of the media asset, wherein the threshold is determined based at least in part on the interest level (see CASPI, ¶ [0047] and [0103]).
Regarding 20, CASPI-Liu teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: cause the second device to display a notification indicating that the volume of audio output at the second device has been decreased (see Liu, ¶ [0049]-[0050] and [0053]). Same motivation utilized for claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
A) US 20140037107 A1 is directed to a system for a plurality of playback devices may be rendering audio in synchrony, when a volume adjustment is made for the plurality of playback devices as a group. In one case, a first playback device in the plurality of playback devices may have a volume limit, as indicated by a state variable associated with the first playback device. In this case, the resulting volume adjustment for the first playback device may be made according to both the group volume adjustment and the volume limit of the first playback device.
B) US 20220103943 A1 is directed to a method for operating playback devices and playback device networks, and methods of operating playback devices and networks, where an individual network device is configured to switch between operating various operating modes comprising a non-paired mode and a paired mode, where the playback device is configured to output various channels of audio content within various audio frequency ranges while operating in the various operating modes.
C) US 20200201495 A1 is directed to a home media control system comprising electronic device receives user input and, in response to receiving the user input, displays, on the display, a multi-device interface that includes: one or more indicators associated with a plurality of available playback devices that are connected to the device and available to initiate playback of media from the device, and a media playback status of the plurality of available playback devices.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed Ibrahim/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
