DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 19/270,334 filed on July 15, 2025. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of Application No. 17/228,019, filed on April 12, 2021. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 8 of U.S. Patent 12,386,887. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are anticipated by the claims in the U.S. Patent.
Following mapping of claims 1 to 10 of Instant Application to claims 1 to 8 of U.S. Patent 12,386,887. Similar mapping applies to claims 11 to 20 of instant application, since they recite similar limitations.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,386,887
1. A method comprising: associating, by a computing device, a recents tab with a portion of a memory of the computing device that is accessible by at least one application on the computing device; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application; determining, by the computing device, a source identification of each stored audio track in the audio history, the source identification identifying which application of the at least one application encountered each audio track; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, the source identification; creating, by the computing device, a playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application and stored in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab; displaying, by the computing device, the playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks associated with the recents tab on a display of the computing device under the recents tab for selection by a user; and playing, by the computing device, an audio track selected by the user from the playlist.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one application comprises at least one of a messaging application, a music streaming application, or a music identification application.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising presenting the recents tab to the display of the computing device when at least one of the sound or song is triggered in the at least one application.
1. A method comprising: associating, by a computing device, a recents tab with a portion of a memory of the computing device that is accessible by a messaging application, a music streaming application, and a music identification application on the computing device; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the messaging application, music streaming application, or music identification application; triggering, by the computing device, the recents tab to appear on a display of the computing device when at least one of the audio tracks in the audio history is triggered in the messaging application, music streaming application, or music identification application; determining, by the computing device, from which of the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application each stored audio track in the audio history was encountered; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, a source identification of from which of the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application each audio track was encountered; creating, by the computing device, a playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the messaging application, music streaming application, or music identification application and stored in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab; displaying, by the computing device, the playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks associated with the recents tab on the display of the computing device for selection by a user; and playing, by the computing device, an audio track selected by the user from the playlist.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein when a song has been encountered in data received or generated by the messaging application or music streaming application, further comprising identifying the song using a music identification service.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein when a song has been encountered in data received or generated by the messaging application or music streaming application, identifying the song using a music identification service.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein when a sound has been encountered in data received or generated by the messaging application or music streaming application, further comprising enabling the user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein when a sound has been encountered in data received or generated by the messaging application or music streaming application, enabling the user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein determining the source identification of each stored audio track in the audio history comprises using at least one of a Global Positioning System of the computing device or a timestamp to identify at least one of where or when a particular audio track was received or generated by the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application on the computing device.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining from which of the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application each stored audio track was encountered comprises using at least one of a Global Positioning System of the computing device or a timestamp to identify at least one of where or when a particular audio track was received or generated by the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application on the computing device.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising ordering the audio tracks in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where a most recently encountered audio track is at a top of the playlist.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising ordering the audio tracks in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where a most recently encountered audio track is at a top of the playlist.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing on the display of the computing device an action menu with options for an audio track in the playlist.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing on the display of the computing device an action menu with options for an audio track in the playlist.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising enabling selection of the options for the selection, the options including at least one of generating a report about a reaction by the user to the selection, viewing a sound page that enables the user to see other content that uses the audio track corresponding to the selection, or sending the selection to another user.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising enabling selection of the options for the selection, the options including at least one of generating a report about a reaction by the user to the selection, viewing a sound page that enables the user to see other content that uses the audio track corresponding to the selection, or sending the selection to another user.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite determining a source, and creating a playlist.
The limitation of determining a source, which specifically recites “determining a source identification of each stored audio track in the audio history, the source identification identifying which application of the at least one application encountered each audio track”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, determining a source of sounds or songs that have been listened to, which can be performed by reading a log or list of encountered songs or sounds, and identifying a source or application associated with the song. The limitation of creating a playlist, which specifically recites “creating a playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application and stored in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the computing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the computing device” language, “creating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining songs or sounds that have been played, received, and stored, which can be performed with the aid of pen and paper by reading a log or list of played or received music, and writing a list of the determined songs or sounds. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “associating a recents tab with a portion of a memory of the computing device that is accessible by at least one application on the computing device”, “storing in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application”, “storing in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, the source identification”, “displaying the playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks associated with the recents tab on a display of the computing device under the recents tab for selection by a user”, and “playing an audio track selected by the user from the playlist”, a computing device, a processor, a memory, a display, a messaging application, a music streaming application, or a music identification application, and a computer readable medium. The limitations “associating a recents tab with a portion of a memory of the computing device that is accessible by at least one application on the computing device”, “storing in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application”, and “storing in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, the source identification”, amount to data-storing steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Continuing with the analysis, the limitations “displaying the playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks associated with the recents tab on a display of the computing device under the recents tab for selection by a user”, and “playing an audio track selected by the user from the playlist”, represent insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and output or presentation of collected and analyzed data (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The computing device, a processor, a memory, a display, the messaging application, music streaming application, or music identification application, and a computer readable medium in these steps are 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, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data storing, and data transmission, and output or presentation steps, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Maenpaa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0182003), Para [0047] “As is well known in user interface design, the most recently viewed analytics could be maintained in the device or application accessing the analytics, e.g. a mobile device, so that on returning to the data display, the content from previous session is displayed by default”; (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Gran et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0052770), Para [0005] “A playlist is a well-known structure for organizing and/or presenting media content for playback”, Para [0006] “A typical media playback device will allow the user to select media objects for individual playback”). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the at least one application comprises at least one of a messaging application, a music streaming application, or a music identification application”, which is tying the abstract idea to a field of use by further specifying the target data, and is simply an attempt to limit the application of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception does not meaningfully limit the claim, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “identifying the song using a music identification service”, which is recited at a high-level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, because it does no more than invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Additional elements that invoke computers, computer components, or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, merely as a tool, or simply add a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “enabling a user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound”, which amount to data gathering steps, that is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and which is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “using at least one of a Global Positioning System of the computing device or a timestamp to identify at least one of where or when a particular audio track was received or generated by the messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application on the computing device”, which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “presenting the recents tab to the display of the computing device when at least one of the sound or song is triggered in the at least one application”, which amounts to data presentation steps, and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)). Therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “ordering the audio tracks in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where a most recently encountered audio track is at a top of the playlist”, which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “providing on the display of the computing device an action menu with options for an audio track in the playlist”, which amounts to data presentation steps, and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)). Therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection”, which is recited at a high-level of generality, with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and is equivalent to merely saying “applying it”, therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “enabling selection of the options for the selection, the options including at least one of generating a report about a reaction by the user to the selection, viewing a sound page that enables the user to see other content that uses the audio track corresponding to the selection, or sending the selection to another user”, where the enabling limitation amounts to data gathering steps, that is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and where the options including limitation is tying the abstract idea to a field of use by further specifying the target data, which is simply an attempt to limit the application of the abstract idea to media content data (or a particular technological environment); merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception does not meaningfully limit the claim, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the insignificant extra-solution activity identified above, including the data-gathering steps, is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims do not include a requirement of anything other than conventional, generic computer technology for executing the abstract idea, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Same rationale applies to claims 11 to 20 since they recite similar limitations.
Claims 1 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francioso (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0225837), in view of Boyle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0024399) hereinafter Boyle, and further in view of Hampiholi (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0006541).
As to claim 1:
Francioso discloses:
A method comprising:
associating, by a computing device, a recents tab with a portion of a memory of the computing device that is accessible by at least one application on the computing device [Paragraph 0026 teaches provides a consolidated or unified graphical user interface for the media applications, including a media player configured to play local media files stored at the client device or stream media files from the server media applications; Paragraph 0031 teaches accessing metadata and playback information from media applications operating at the client device, the recents tab is represented by the unified graphical user interface];
determining, by the computing device, a source identification of each stored audio track in the audio history, the source identification identifying which application of the at least one application encountered each audio track [Paragraph 0056 teaches accessing metadata and playback information for each media application operating at the client device, therefore, determining from which of the applications each audio track was encountered; Paragraph 0062 teaches unified media user interface includes metadata corresponding to each media application, song information, etc.; Fig. 9, 902, 904, 906, 908, media including indication of which application the song was encountered, i.e., Spotify, YouTube, Media Player, etc.];
creating, by the computing device, a playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application [Paragraph 0062 teaches unified media user interface includes metadata corresponding to each media application, song information, etc.; Fig. 9, 902, 904, 906, 908, media including indication of which application the song was encountered, i.e., Spotify, YouTube, Media Player, etc.];
displaying, by the computing device, the playlist of the audio tracks and source identification of the audio tracks associated with the recents tab on the display of the computing device under the recents tab for selection by a user [Paragraph 0062 teaches unified media user interface includes metadata corresponding to each media application, song information, etc.; Fig. 9, 902, 904, 906, 908, media including indication of which application the song was encountered, i.e., Spotify, YouTube, Media Player, etc., where the unified media user interface represents the playlist and source identifications of the audio tracks, the recents tab is represented by the unified graphical user interface]; and
playing, by the computing device, an audio track selected by the user from the playlist [Paragraph 0023 teaches managing media originating from any media application operating at a computing device, in a single location, where the single location provides the user with a consistent way to manipulate a media stream, regardless of its origin, therefore, playing an audio selected from the playlist; Paragraph 0062 teaches unified media user interface illustrates song information and corresponding controls for playback; Fig. 9, 902, 904, 906, 908, media including indication of which application the song was encountered, and playback controls].
Francioso does not appear to expressly disclose storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, the source identification; a portion of a memory associated with a recents tab.
Boyle discloses:
storing audio an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application [Paragraph 0062 teaches tracking audio and songs played, and aggregating and storing the song play information to be displayed through a unified music feed; Paragraph 0068 teaches storing the tracked played songs in a local song play database; Paragraph 0069 teaches capturing user’s listening history];
storing the source identification [Paragraph 0059 teaches storing the resulting content in a unified music feed and displaying it in a graphical and textual interface; Paragraph 0060 teaches returning the aggregated results of the plays back to the client device; Paragraph 0062 teaches tracking audio and songs played, and aggregating and storing the song play information to be displayed through a unified music feed; Paragraph 0068 teaches storing the tracked played songs in a local song play database; Paragraph 0070 teaches music listening history permits a user to browse or search the content information stored in the unified music feed, review the unified music feed and see what music or other audio has been tracked across various sources, for example, songs that were played and captured on an Android native music player, as indicated by the graphical source flag on the song card, where displaying the song plays using graphical and textual interface makes it easy to distinguish the source of where the audio has been played, therefore, the content information includes the source or platform in which the song was encountered, which is stored in the unified music feed; Paragraph 0072 teaches user can check his activity to see what music or other audio has been played recently and when, therefore, a portion of memory associated with a recents tab; Fig. 11, Activity tab including music and audio that has been played recently].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by storing audio an audio history of received audio tracks including sounds or songs encountered by the at least one application; storing the source identification, as taught by Boyle [Paragraphs 0060, 0062, 0070, 0072], because the applications are directed to detecting and monitoring content interaction by users; tracking and storing the user interactions and sources enables to provide further information to the user, facilitating discovery of new music, and providing the ability to search and filter information (See Boyle Paras [0019]-[0023]).
Neither Francioso nor Boyle appear to expressly disclose storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, encountered audio tracks; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, a source identification; a portion of a memory associated with a recents tab.
Hampiholi discloses:
storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, encountered audio tracks; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, a source identification [Paragraph 0009 teaches storing media experience information including the content from the one or more media sources, and one or more attributes; Paragraph 0025 teaches determining the content that is output and the manner in which it is output by a media player, and learning user behaviors and preferences and storing the behaviors and preferences in memory of a device; Paragraph 0027 content from the media sources, and additional information may be transmitted to the engine, therefore, the memory is accessible by the applications; Paragraph 0035 teaches additional information may be stored as metadata associated with the content, in memory];
a portion of a memory associated with a recents tab [Paragraph 0009 teaches storing media experience information for users of content from one or more media sources, where the media experience information may include the content from the one or more media sources, and one or more attributes; Paragraph 0025 teaches determining the content that is output and the manner in which it is output by a media player, and learning user behaviors and preferences and storing the behaviors and preferences in memory of a device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by incorporating storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab on the computing device, encountered audio tracks; storing, by the computing device, in the portion of the memory associated with the recents tab, a source identification; a portion of a memory associated with a recents tab, as taught by Hampiholi [Paragraphs 0009, 0025, 0027, 0035], because both applications are directed to detection and analysis of music consumption by users; incorporating a portion of a memory of the computing device associated with a recents tab or historical media experience, enables the caching or download of music and dynamic generation of playlists that can be provided to the user even when the network connection is severed, enhancing the system’s flexibility and improving the user experience (See Hampiholi Paras [0010], [0011]).
As to claim 2:
Francioso discloses:
wherein the at least one application comprises at least one of a messaging application, a music streaming application, or a music identification application [Paragraph 0024 teaches identifies a plurality of media applications, by accesses metadata and playback information for each media application of the plurality of media applications; Paragraph 0022 teaches media can be played from different places including media players, streamed through third-party applications, media applications, etc.].
As to claim 5:
Francioso as modified by Boyle discloses:
using at least one of a Global Positioning System of the computing device or a timestamp to identify at least one of where or when a particular audio track was received or generated by the at least one messaging application, music streaming application or music identification application on the computing device [Boyle - Paragraph 0013 teaches determining the location of the electronic device through the use of GPS, to identify the location of where a song or other audio is played on an electronic device; Paragraph 0056 teaches the timestamp field is also retrieved which holds data that indicates when the event occurred on the device that plays the content].
As to claim 6:
Francioso as modified by Boyle discloses:
presenting the recents tab to the display of the computing device when at least one of the sound or song is triggered in the at least one application [Boyle - Paragraph 0009 teaches tracking music or other audio metadata from a number of sources in real-time on an electronic device and displaying this information as a unified music feed using a graphical and textual interface; Paragraph 0080 teaches allowing users on the application to listen to the music or other audio as quickly as it is played].
As to claim 8:
Francioso as modified by Boyle discloses:
providing on the display of the computing device an action menu with options for an audio track in the playlist [Boyle - Paragraph 0070 teaches the user can browse and search the unified music feed, and share information and music with others; Fig. 7, “thumbs up” icon, “thumbs down” icon, share icon for selection; Fig. 20, Action Menu including options for a sound or song in the playlist].
Same rationale applies to claims 11, 12, 15, 16, and 20, since they recite similar limitations, and are therefore, similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francioso (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0225837), in view of Boyle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0024399) hereinafter Boyle, in view of Hampiholi (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0006541), and further in view of Oh (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0042647).
As to claim 3:
Francioso discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose identifying the song using a music identification service.
Oh discloses:
identifying the song using a music identification service [Paragraph 0023 teaches a identifying a song being played in the user’s environment based on the ambient sound information, where the sound signal is converted to an audio fingerprint or hash and compared with information in an audio fingerprint database to identify the song, therefore, using a music identification service].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by identifying the song using a music identification service, as taught by Oh [Paragraph 0023], because both applications are directed to detection and analysis of music consumption by the user and generation of music listening history; identifying the song using a music identification service enhances the system’s flexibility, by enabling the capability of tracking encountered music or audio even when metadata for the content is not available, improving thereby the user’s experience.
As to claim 4:
Francioso discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose enabling a user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound.
Oh discloses:
enabling a user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound [Paragraph 0023 teaches detecting ambient sounds in the user’s environment, and generating a fingerprint from the sound signal to identify the song; Paragraph 0066 teaches a notes field including additional information, which may be manually entered by a user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by enabling a user of the computing device to provide a name or other identifying information for the sound, as taught by Oh [Paragraph 0023], because both applications are directed to detection and analysis of music consumption by the user and generation of music listening history; enabling the user to provide identifying information of the audio, improves the user’s experience by providing the user with more control and flexibility to manage the content.
Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 14, since they recite similar limitations, and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francioso (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0225837), in view of Boyle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0024399) hereinafter Boyle, in view of Hampiholi (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0006541), and further in view of Wehbi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063011) hereinafter Wehbi.
As to claim 7:
Francioso discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose ordering the audio tracks in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where a most recently encountered audio track is at a top of the playlist.
Wehbi discloses:
ordering the sounds or songs in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where a most recently encountered sound or song is at a top of the playlist [Paragraph 0059 teaches the songs may be ordered by a time at which the song was played, such that the most recent song is listed first].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by ordering the audio tracks in the playlist associated with the recents tab in reverse chronological order where the most recently encountered audio track is at a top of the playlist, as taught by Wehbi [Paragraph 0059], because both applications are directed to detection and analysis of music consumption by the user; ordering the songs in the playlist in reverse chronological order by played date is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Same rationale applies to claim 17, since it recites similar limitations.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francioso (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0225837), in view of Boyle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0024399) hereinafter Boyle, in view of Hampiholi (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0006541), and further in view of Davydov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0050185) hereinafter Davydov.
As to claim 9:
Francioso discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 8 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection.
Davydov discloses:
displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection [Paragraph 0230 teaches detecting a press-and-hold gesture on the touch-sensitive display, where while any application interface screen is displayed, the device responds to detection of a press-and-hold gesture by displaying a menu screen].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Francioso, by displaying the action menu when the user presses and holds on a selection in the playlist to display on the display of the computing device options for the selection, as taught by Davydov [Paragraph 0230], because both applications are directed to providing content to user devices, including media playlists; displaying an action menu with options for a sound or song upon detecting a press-and-hold gesture is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claim 10:
Francioso as modified by Boyle further discloses:
enabling selection of the options for the selection, the options including at least one of generating a report about a reaction by the user to the selection, viewing a sound page that enables the user to see other content that uses the audio track corresponding to the selection, or sending the selection to another user [Boyle - Paragraph 0073 teaches a user can share any music or other audio with other users, or to a third party application; Fig. 20, options for selection including sharing the content with other users, or third party application].
Same rationale applies to claims 18 and 19, since they recite similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights