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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19-38 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 19, the applicant argues on pages 6-8 that neither Narayanan nor Lenke suggests "control information corresponding to the particular audio clip" in the sense of a control signal generated because of, or tied to, that specific clip for the purpose of adjusting signal levels. It is because, claimed invention requires a closed loop between (i) detection of a particular clip, (ii) generation of corresponding control information, and (iii) dynamic adjustment of audio signal levels based on that correspondence. This argument is not persuasive. It is because, the applicant did not claim “dynamic adjustment of audio signal levels based on the correspondence between control information and a detected particular clip”. Instead, the applicant claims control information corresponding to the particular audio clip. Lenke teaches this limitation. In col. 7, lines 29-51, Lenke teaches detecting whether the user speaks. The system analyzes the user’s speech/user’s speaking [i.e., particular audio clip]. Since the mute feature [i.e., control information] is turned “on”, the other users will not hear anything. In col.8, lines 5-23, Lenke further elaborates on the teaching set forth in col. 7, lines 29-51 by teaching that the system is distinguishing between talking to the conference and background noise or side speech after recognizing that the user is staring out the window and talking. Based on such a determination, and by the system distinguishing between talking to the conference and background noise or side speech, the component 220 can automatically unmute 224 the device 202, such that the speech provided by the user 208 will be heard by other users in the communication session 250, or mute the device 202. In col.20, lines 22-31, Lenke also elaborates on the teaching set forth in col. 7, lines 29-51 by teaching that the system increasing the volume of one or more participants in the communication session based on a classification decision that their speech is intended for the communication session but has a lower volume or is more difficult to hear. In all of these teaching, it is clear that the mute/unmute feature (instruction/control) is the claimed “control information” to control the audio signal levels based on a determination made from the audio signal of the user’s speech or background.
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain. The rejection of the claim 29 will remain for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 21-25, 28, 29, 31-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (US Patent No. 9,286,899) in view of Lenke et al. (US Patent No. 10,776,073).
Regarding claim 19, with respect to Figure -31, Narayanan teaches a method, comprising:
in a wireless device (col.7, lines 19-24): while receiving a conversation/audio interaction [i.e., audio signal], detecting an audio signature of a user’s utterance [i.e., a particular audio clip] (fig.1-3; col.1, lines 50-62, col.7, lines 4-18, 31-46, col.8, lines 36-48); and
increasing/decreasing [i.e., adjusting] volume [i.e., one or more levels of the audio signal] according to volume control button [i.e., control information] (col.7, lines 31-46) (Note; since voice-controlled device is for supporting audio interactions with the user and the voice-controlled device also includes basic volume control button for increasing/decreasing [i.e., adjusting] volume, it is clear that the volume is the claimed one or more levels of the audio signal (see also col.5, line 63-col.6, line 1).).
However, Narayanan does not specifically teach control information corresponding to the particular audio clip. Lenke teaches instruction/control [i.e., control information] corresponding to the user speaking [i.e., particular audio clip] (col.7, lines 29-51, col.8, line 49-col.9, line 13, col.9, lines 8-33). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan to incorporate control information corresponding to the particular audio clip in Narayanan’s invention as taught by Lenke. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to facilitate efficient performance of the voice-controlled device.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Narayanan teaches wherein: the audio conversation/audio interaction [i.e., audio signal] comprises a first sound from a first source and a second sound from a second source (col.1, lines 50-62, col.4, lines 62-67, col.7, lines 31-46);
the audio signature of the particular audio clip is associated with the second sound (col.5, line 63-col.6, line 1); and
the increasing/decreasing [i.e., adjusting] comprises adjusting the audio signal to enhance the second sound with respect to the first sound (col.7, lines 31-46).
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 19. Furthermore, Narayanan teaches wherein: the first source is a user of the studio equipment (fig.1; col.1, lines 50-62).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Narayanan teaches wherein: the audio signal comprises a channel (col.3, lines 59-61) (Note; since there are user interactions [i.e., audio signal] from more than one room, the audio signal must come through a channel.); and
the adjusting comprises adjusting a power level of one or more channels of the audio signal to enhance sound corresponding to the particular audio clip (col.1, lines 41-52, col.2, lines 37-62, claim 4 in col.5).
However, Narayanan does not specifically teach wherein: the audio signal comprises a plurality of channels. Lenke teaches wherein: the audio signal comprises a plurality of channels (paragraphs 0008, 0056). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan to incorporate wherein: the audio signal comprises a plurality of channels in Narayanan’s invention as taught by Lenke. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide combination of multiple signals efficiently.
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Narayanan teaches wherein: the adjusting occurs for a predetermined threshold (col.1, lines 54-65); and
However, Narayanan in view of Lenke does not specifically teach wherein: the adjusting occurs for a predetermined amount of time. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein: the adjusting occurs for a predetermined amount of time is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan in view of Lenke to incorporate wherein: the adjusting occurs for a predetermined amount of time in Narayanan’s invention in view of Lenke’s invention in order to provide adjustment for a predetermined amount of time efficiently.
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Narayanan teaches wherein: the adjusting occurs according to a power level of the particular audio clip relative to another portion of the audio signal (col.1, lines 41-52, col.2, lines 37-62, claim 4 in col.5).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Narayanan does not specifically teach wherein: the computing device is a personal device worn on or in an ear of a user. Lenke teaches wherein: the computing device is a personal digital assistant/mobile phone [i.e., personal device] worn on or in an ear of a user (paragraph 0021). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan to incorporate wherein: the computing device is a personal device worn on or in an ear of a user in Narayanan’s invention as taught by Lenke. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide audio service using a personal device efficiently.
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (US Patent No. 9,286,899) in view of Lenke et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0089390) further in view of Bonanno (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0040240).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Narayanan in view of Lenke does not specifically teach wherein: the audio signal is generated by a video game. Bonanno teaches wherein: the audio signal is generated by a gaming unit [i.e., video game] (abstract; paragraph 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan in view of Lenke to incorporate wherein: the audio signal is generated by a video game in Narayanan’s invention in view of Lenke’s invention as taught by Bonanno. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently generate audio from a game device.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (US Patent No. 9,286,899) in view of Lenke et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0089390) further in view of Shibao (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0132938).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Narayanan teaches that the adjusting occurs dynamically according to the acquired control information (col.1, lines 41-52, col.2, lines 37-62, claim 4 in col.5).
However, Narayanan in view of Lenke does not specifically teach wherein: the control information is acquired a priori. Shibao teaches wherein: the control information is acquired a priori (paragraph 0174). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan in view of Lenke to incorporate wherein: the control information is acquired a priori in Narayanan’s invention in view of Lenke’s invention as taught by Shibao. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently generate audio from a device.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (US Patent No. 9,286,899) in view of Lenke et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0089390) further in view of Shibao (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0132938) further in view of Bonanno (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0040240).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Narayanan further in view of Shibao does not specifically teach wherein: the control information is acquired and stored in the computing device when a particular video game is first played. Lenke teaches video playback (paragraph 0005) whereas Bonanno teaches wherein: the chat signal [i.e., control information] is acquired and stored in the computing device when a particular audio game is first played (abstract; paragraphs 0036-0038). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanan further in view of Shibao to incorporate wherein: the control information is acquired and stored in the computing device when a particular video game is first played in Narayanan’s invention further in view of Shibao’s invention as taught by Lenke and Bonanno. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently play a particular game.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
November 14, 2025