Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 10/10/2025.
4. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. Applicant’s IDS submissions are deemed excessive and not conforming to the best practices for IDS submissions, as detailed below.
Applicant has no "duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim", and information is material to patentability only "when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application". See 37 CFR 1.56(a) & (b). Further, applicant is requested to "eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information [and] if a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance". See MPEP 2004(14). An applicant’s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real-world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
MPEP 609 states that "consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search." Because applicant did not submit any explanatory remarks along with the IDS which provide an indication of how the IDS submissions are "material to the patentability of any existing claim" nor did applicant “highlight those documents [having the] most significance", given the volume of the submissions, the examiner has conducted only a cursory review and has not reviewed the documents thoroughly or in any particularized or individualized detail. Applicant is invited and requested to submit explanatory remarks “highlighting” those portion(s) of the document(s) that are of particular relevancy to the "patentability of any existing claim".
By signing the accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made. Finally, applicant should further note that nothing in this section is intended by the examiner to indicate a requirement for information for information under 37 CFR 1.105, but applicant is otherwise required to conform to other rules, requirements, and best practices regarding the submission of IDS documents, as noted above.
Double Patenting
7. 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, 5, 7-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 15, 8 and 3 respectively of U.S. Patent (“12346372”).
Instant Application 19/253,512
U.S. Patent 12346372 (18/439,484)
1. (a) A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
(b) determine a playback queue comprising one or more media items to be played back by one or more playback devices;
(c) cause the one or more playback devices to begin playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue;
(d) while the one or more playback devices are playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue, determine, based on user input provided via a first computing device associated with a first user, a command comprising a modification to the playback queue;
(e) cause the playback queue to be modified based on the command; and cause a second computing device associated with a second user to display, via a second user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue.
1. (a) A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to:
determine a first command to add one or more media items to a playback queue associated with a playback device of a media playback system, (b) wherein the playback queue comprises media content that is to be played back by the playback device; based on the first command, cause the one or more media items to be added to the playback queue;
(c) cause the playback device to play back the playback queue including the one or more media items;
(d) while the playback device is playing back the playback queue, determine, by a first computing device of the media playback system, a second command comprising a modification to the playback queue;
(e) cause the playback queue to be modified based on the second command; and cause a second computing device of the media playback system to display, via a user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue.
Claims 5 and 7-12
Claims 1, 1, 5, 6, 15, 8 and 3
Same rejection applied to claims 13-20.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system, claims 13-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and claims 19-20 are directed to a method with steps, Thus, claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 13 and 19 recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
determine a playback queue comprising one or more media items to be played back by one or more playback devices;
Organizing and sequencing a queue is something a person can do in their head or with pen and paper, determining a queue is considered a mental process (evaluating/judging) or a method of organizing human activity,
cause the one or more playback devices to begin playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue;
Simply perform routine actions (like queuing and playing media) is generally considered an ineligible, unpatentable concept. Directing a device to play a queue is essentially asking a computer to perform basic automation.
while the one or more playback devices are playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue, determine, based on user input provided via a first computing device associated with a first user, a command comprising a modification to the playback queue;
Merely automating a manual process—such as a user providing input to change a queue—is generally abstract, whereas specific technological implementations can be patentable.
cause the playback queue to be modified based on the command;
Modifying a playback queue based on a command is an abstract idea Sorting, organizing, or retrieving information based on user commands is frequently categorized as a "mental process" A command that simply tells a generic device to reorder a list usually falls into this category.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a "Mental process".
Implementing those steps on a generic computer does not necessarily make it non-abstract. but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements such as “processor” and “a memory”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which do not provide integration into a practical application:
The additional elements of: “processor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “display”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of: “cause a second computing device associated with a second user to display, via a second user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Courts generally view the display, collection, or transmission of information—such as a playlist, queue, or update—as an unpatentable mental process. Merely automating this on a generic computing device or transferring it across a network does not make it non-abstract. the second user interface and second computing device are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf technology (like a standard computer or smartphone) rather than a specific, transformative technological improvement to computer functionality itself., see MPEP 2106.05(f), and amount to extra-solution activity of data outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g), that does not provide integration into a practical application.
The following key case law establishes this precedent (see MPEP 2106.05(g)):
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2014): The court ruled that using standard technology (such as a scanner) to extract and store data was conventional and did not add a qualifying "inventive concept" to make the claims eligible.
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2014): The Federal Circuit found that the act of "requesting, transmitting, receiving, copying, deleting, and storing data records" is merely a fundamental business practice and a generic computer function that does not add significant extra-solution activity.
In re Grams (Fed. Cir. 1989): the court established that mere "data gathering" steps (such as gathering data for use in an algorithm or process) are incidental and do not render an otherwise unpatentable abstract mathematical process eligible.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly More
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(II) for Step 2B, examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
Therefore, the additional elements and the conclusions above under MPEP 2106.05(f) are carried over and these elements do not provide significantly more.
The conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that additional elements were insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated in Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
With respect to “processor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “display”.
These limitations are generic and conventional elements, these are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers.
With respect to “cause a second computing device associated with a second user to display, via a second user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue”.
Considered insignificant extra-solution activity under 35 U.S.C. 101 and deemed "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activity that does not transform an unpatentable concept into a patent-eligible Thus, this additional element is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(g)):
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2014): The court ruled that using standard technology (such as a scanner) to extract and store data was conventional and did not add a qualifying "inventive concept" to make the claims eligible.
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2014): The Federal Circuit found that the act of "requesting, transmitting, receiving, copying, deleting, and storing data records" is merely a fundamental business practice and a generic computer function that does not add significant extra-solution activity.
In re Grams (Fed. Cir. 1989): the court established that mere "data gathering" steps (such as gathering data for use in an algorithm or process) are incidental and do not render an otherwise unpatentable abstract mathematical process eligible.
Even when considered in combination and viewing the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-10 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 3, 6, 7 and 10.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims inherit the abstract idea of claim 1 (Mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 5 and 8.
Step 2A Prong 1: Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. the claims recite the additional limitation which are amount to extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) of data outputting/display data, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to data outputting/displaying, see MPEP 2106.05(g) are well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(iv).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 12.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims inherit the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. The additional elements amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of user and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of use and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). It does not amount significantly more as merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are merely linking the abstract idea.
Same analysis applied to claims 13-20.
Examiner Note
10. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Rothkopf et al (US 20110004330 A1) hereinafter as Rothkopf in view of Alsina et al (US 20140282755 A1) hereinafter as Alsina.
14. Regarding claim 1, Rothkopf teaches A system comprising: at least one processor ([0018], "a processor for performing playback of the one or more of the digital media assets as managed by the playback module."); at least one non-transitory computer readable medium ([0072], "memory"); and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
determine a playback queue comprising one or more media items to be played back by one or more playback devices ([0031], “provide a playback queue that can facilitate scheduling playback of distinct digital media assets. Digital media assets to be played subsequently can be listed in the playback queue to thereby manage playback of various digital media assets.”, [0032], "multiple users can rate, vote or request (a first command) addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets (media content) within a media playback queue.", Fig 3, [0048], [0052], Fig 4E, [0053], [0056]);
cause the one or more playback devices to begin playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue ([0036-0037], “The playback module 104 can operate to cause a digital media asset to be played back by the client computing device 100”, [0047-0048], “When the decision 316 determines that the specified media item is to be played back next, the specified media item can be added 318 to a top of a playback queue.”, [0053], "if the selected song identified in FIG. 4D is to be added to the playback queue, the queue screen 412 includes the selected song (e.g., "Song 3"). After the currently playing song ("Song d") from the now playing screen 404 has completed its playback, a next song (e.g., "Song3") for playback can be obtained from the playback queue.");
while the one or more playback devices are playing back the one or more media items in the playback queue, determine, based on user input provided via a first computing device associated with a first user, a command comprising a modification to the playback queue ([0032], “multiple users can rate, vote or request addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets within a media playback queue (share control of a music playback queue).”, [0042], "while the playback of the one or more of digital media assets in the selected playlist is ongoing, the client computing device can receive a selection of another digital media asset for playback (a command).", Fig 4C, 4D, [0052-0053], [0056], " a user can interact with the client computing device to alter the playback queue (add, reorder delete…).", Fig 8A-8C, [0065], [0073], "One advantage of certain embodiments is that digital media assets can be scheduled to play next even while another digital media asset is being concurrently played.");
cause the playback queue to be modified based on the command ([0042], Fig
4C, 4D, [0052], [0056], Fig 8A-8C, [0065] and [0073]);
Rothkopf did not specifically teach cause a second computing device associated with a second user to display, via a second user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue
However, Alsina teaches cause a second computing device associated with a second user to display, via a second user interface of the second computing device, an indication of the modification to the playback queue ([0074]) ([0008], "The graphical user interface objects, which can be a banner, alert, or other notification, can identify a paused media item.", Fig 4, step 420 & 430, [0046], [0064], "a client device receiving updates to a media queue or a playback record can present the updates as one or more notifications on a display of the client device. The updates can be received from a server or another client device", [0073], "Contents such as playback records that are new or have been updated when compared to the contents of the stored media queue can be flagged for display as a notification on a client device.", see also Fig 6, step 610 & 620, [0073], "Contents such as playback records that are new or have been updated when compared to the contents of the stored media queue can be flagged for display as a notification on a client device." [0075-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Alsina's system into Rothkopf's and by incorporating Alsina into Rothkopf because both systems are related to media playback, and more specifically to the playback of media items across multiple devices would provide improved techniques for playing back media content across multiple
devices.
15. Regarding claim 2, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein the one or more media items comprise a playlist associated with a music service ([0042-0044], [0052], [0057]).
16. Regarding claim 3, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and Rothkopf further teaches before causing the second computing device to display the indication of the modification to the playback queue, determine that the second user interface has access to the music service ([0008], “a computing device can be controlled such that a user is able to schedule playback of distinct digital media assets.”, [0032], “multiple users can rate, vote or request addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets within a media playback queue (share control of a music playback queue).”, [0068], “multiple users can contribute digital media assets for playback to a media playback queue being utilized by a master playback device.”, “Contributing users can also be allowed to rate or vote on request adding, removing or positioning digital media assets within the media playback queue.”, [0073], “multiple users can contribute to a playback queue at a location (e.g., venue) that is playing media for patrons.”).
Also, Alsina teaches the limitation at ([0030], user account has access, [0035], “facilitate providing the first user with access to any such missing media items on any or all client devices of the first user by synchronizing and/or mirroring the digital media file libraries 124A, 124B.”, [0045], “the playback metadata manager 114 of server 102 may access and/or retrieve and/or update the playback records or media queue relating to the first user.”, [0068], “a first user, using a browser on a client device associated with a second user, can access his email to review the notification.”).
17. Regarding claim 4, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein: the one or more playback devices comprise at least a first playback device and a second playback device; the first playback device and the first computing device are associated with a first local media playback system; and the second playback device and the second computing device are associated with a second local media playback system ([0010], [0016], [0032], [0068]).
18. Regarding claim 5, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches cause the first computing device to display, via a user interface of the first computing device, a respective indication of the modification to the playback queue ([0074]) ([0008], "The graphical user interface objects, which can be a banner, alert, or other notification, can identify a paused media item.", Fig 4, step 420 & 430, [0046], [0064], "a client device receiving updates to a media queue or a playback record can present the updates as one or more notifications on a display of the client device. The updates can be received from a server or another client device", [0073], "Contents such as playback records that are new or have been updated when compared to the contents of the stored media queue can be flagged for display as a notification on a client device.", see also Fig 6, step 610 & 620, [0073], "Contents such as playback records that are new or have been updated when compared to the contents of the stored media queue can be flagged for display as a notification on a client device." [0075-0076]).
19. Regarding claim 6, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 5 above and Rothkopf further teaches determine, based on user input provided via the user interface of the second computing device, a third command comprising an additional modification to the playback queue; cause the playback queue to be modified based on the third command; and cause the first computing device to display, via the user interface of the first computing device, a respective indication of the additional modification to the playback queue (same as claim 1 with different command).
20. Regarding claim 7, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein the command is a second command, and wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the playback queue comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: determine a first command to add the one or more media items to the playback queue; and based on the first command, cause the one or more media items to be added to the playback queue ([0032], “multiple users can rate, vote or request addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets within a media playback queue (share control of a music playback queue).”, [0042], "while the playback of the one or more of digital media assets in the selected playlist is ongoing, the client computing device can receive a selection of another digital media asset for playback (a command).", Fig 4C, 4D, [0052-0053], [0056], " a user can interact with the client computing device to alter the playback queue (add, reorder delete…).", Fig 8A-8C, [0065], [0073], "One advantage of certain embodiments is that digital media assets can be scheduled to play next even while another digital media asset is being concurrently played.").
21. Regarding claim 8, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 7 above and Rothkopf further teaches transmit, to a given playback device of the one or more playback devices, an instruction to add the one or more media items to the playback queue ([0032], “multiple users can rate, vote or request addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets within a media playback queue (share control of a music playback queue).”, [0042], "while the playback of the one or more of digital media assets in the selected playlist is ongoing, the client computing device can receive a selection of another digital media asset for playback (a command).", Fig 4C, 4D, [0052-0053], [0056], " a user can interact with the client computing device to alter the playback queue (add, reorder delete…).", Fig 8A-8C, [0065], [0073], "One advantage of certain embodiments is that digital media assets can be scheduled to play next even while another digital media asset is being concurrently played.").
Also, Alsina teaches the limitation at ([0010] “In some embodiments, a media queue can be periodically updated by a server or client device by adding new records and/or pruning existing records according to constraints.”, Fig 6, [0075], “Process 600 can be performed on a client device (the first computing device). Process 600 begins by displaying a graphical user interface object (GUI object) in response to a change to the media queue at 610. The change to the media queue can be an addition of or an update to a playback record to the media queue where the GUI object corresponds to the newly added playback record.” Fig 1, [0047], [0086-0087]) (Fig 4, step 420, [0070] “Once the playback record has been received, a media queue of the client device can optionally be updated at 420.”).
22. Regarding claim 9, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 8 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein the instruction includes one or more identifiers for retrieving the one or more media items from a media content source ([0007], “A playback record is a record that represents a resumption point in a media item to resume playback of the media item. In some examples, the playback record includes a unique media item identifier and a bookmark position corresponding to the resumption point.”, [0023], “The playback record can include a unique media item identifier”, see also [0082]).
23. Regarding claim 10, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 8 above and Rothkopf further teaches retrieve, from a media content source, the one or more media items; and include, in the instruction, the retrieved one or more media items for playback by the playback device (Fig 4A, [0050-0051], a songs screen 400 that presents a plurality of songs available for selection (a media content source)).
Also, Alsina teaches the limitation at (Fig 1, [0025], [0038], also see [0043-0044], “locate and retrieve a playback record or media queue in the first user account of playback metadata storage 118 in accounts storage 116”).
24. Regarding claim 11, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein the command comprises one of (i) adding a media item to the playback queue, (ii) re-positioning a media item in the playback queue, (iii) skipping playback of a media item in the playback queue, or (iv) removing a media item from the playback queue ([0032], “multiple users can rate, vote or request addition, removal, placement or position of digital media assets within a media playback queue (share control of a music playback queue).”, [0042], "while the playback of the one or more of digital media assets in the selected playlist is ongoing, the client computing device can receive a selection of another digital media asset for playback (a command).", Fig 4C, 4D, [0052-0053], [0056], " a user can interact with the client computing device to alter the playback queue (add, reorder delete…).", Fig 8A-8C, [0065], [0073], "One advantage of certain embodiments is that digital media assets can be scheduled to play next even while another digital media asset is being concurrently played.");
Also, Alsina teaches the limitation at (i) adding one or more media items to the playback queue ([0010], “In some embodiments, a media queue can be periodically updated by a server or client device by adding new records and/or pruning existing records according to constraints.”[0064], “[0064] In some embodiments, a client device (the first computing device) receiving updates to a media queue or a playback record can present the updates as one or more notifications on a display of the client device (the first computing device). The updates can be received from a server or another client device (the second computing device).”), (ii) re-ordering one or more media items in the playback queue, (iii) skipping playback of a media item in the playback queue ([0008], “The graphical user interface objects, which can be a banner, alert, or other notification, can identify a paused media item.”, [0023], [0053], “pausing or stopping”), or (iv) removing one or more media items from the playback queue ([0070] Once the playback record has been received, a media queue of the client device can optionally be updated at 420. Updating the media queue can include performing maintenance such as removing records from the queue that have an expired TTL or pruning records in the media queue to maintain the size of the queue…Maintenance can also include removing records in the media queue that are older than a predefined threshold. [0075], “The change to the media queue can be an addition of or an update to a playback record to the media queue where the GUI object corresponds to the newly added playback record.”).
25. Regarding claim 12, Rothkopf and Alsina teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Rothkopf further teaches wherein the command comprises a voice command detected by either the first computing device or a given playback device of the one or more playback devices ([0038], “the user input can be voice inputs (e.g., voice commands).”).
26. Regarding claims 13-18, those claims recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction performs the method of system claims 1-6 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
27. Regarding claims 19-20, those claims recite methods performs the method of system claims 1 and 3 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
CONCLUSION
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Cassidy (US 20120089910 A1)
Martin et al (US 20090222392 A1)
Martin et al (US 20070244880 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights