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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 17 recite a system operative to obtain second audio information from a source “via a second wireless networking protocol that is different than the first wireless networking protocol.” Examiner had previously rejected this recitation based on the well known nature of the disclosed wireless protocols common to Lambourne and the instant Application. Applicant argues an interpretation of this claimed subject matter in the remarks filed 8/20/26 with which Examiner cannot agree. The Instant specification presents wireless protocols in the alternative (please see ¶ 36 of the instant specification); and presents a list of singular wireless interfaces (¶ 41, 44). Nowhere does the specification convey possession of a system which delivers a particular groups’ audio over one protocol and a separate groups’ audio of a different protocol; in fact the specification does not even refer to wireless protocols in the plural. A Markush type list of protocol options for a wireless interface continually referenced in the singular does not show possession of a claim which recites selection among two protocols and assignment of such protocols to particular transmissions among particular devices. Examiner had considered the claim enabled but based on Applicant’s arguments the claimed subject matter cannot be considered possessed by Applicant at the effective filing date of the instant Application. Further Examiner has rejected the first and second wireless protocol 5 times with respect to an original official notice of the well known nature of plural wireless protocols for operation of audio streaming prior to Applicant providing any traverse. Applicant has amended upon the wireless protocols and now argues a distinction not borne out by the specification as filed. Claims 2-16, 18-42 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claim 9, 10, 25, 26 additionally recite PAN and WLAN in a manner not possessed by the specification which only discusses species thereof, such as Bluetooth, wifi, etc. Claims 37 and 42 additionally recite SNTP which appears nowhere in the specification and thus lacks clear possession. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, 17 recite “in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect,” which appears self-explanatory but groupwise and stereo effect have no discussion whatever in the specification as filed beyond “the stereo effects of a sound are reproduced through these two zone players,” which Examiner considers in keeping with the accepted definition of stereo to imply two channels reproduced upon two speakers. The phrase is applied to the first group without modification and to the second group as instructing some form of channel splitting presumably echoing the accepted practice of directing left and right channels to left and right speakers; claim 3, 19 recite a similar differentiation to the first group; this distinction of the stereo effect as absent from claim 1 makes the recitation amount to deriving a stereo effect in almost any manner, dispersion of speakers, transducers in the environ, particular occlusion of one ear while listening to monaural media, etc., listening with one ear in a bath, mud or pressed to a phone. Additionally the second group and stereo effect thereof comprise “at least one other device” in a manner that embraces the group comprising 3 or more devices at which point the “groupwise with a stereo effect,” becomes less clear and potentially more reliant on the user interface operations of Lambourne Figure 7D as discussed infra. Claims 2-16, 18-42 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claims 2, 18 additionally recite “the second audio information from the second source, which has been corrected in claims 1, 11 but is considered indefinite in claims 2, 18; presumably this recitation would require a third audio information from the second source, however the first, second, etc. sources reliably deliver, first through n-th audio information in response to a subscribing user’s requests. Claims 4, 5, 20, 21 recite a third device and a fourth device and assign the first and second channels thereto; parent claim 1 requires that the second group comprise at least one device which plays a first channel while at least one other device plays a second channel which creates an indefinite relationship—are the third and fourth devices the same as the at least one and at least one other devices? Claims 5, 21 additionally recite a third and a fourth device while depending from claim 1 which recites no first or second device. Claims 7, 23 additionally recite instructions “configured to control the second group to play the third audio information,” and resolve third audio from a second source which claims 2, 17 do not appropriately obtain; claim 23 additionally recites “wherein controlling the second group…” but no controlling is recited in parent claims 17 or 18. Claims 8, 24 recite subject matter redundant to that recited in claims 1, 17 then amend the form of the claim 1, 17 recitations in a manner that neither corresponds thereto nor conforms therewith and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 15, 31 additionally recite an iPhone which is a registered trademark and as such render the claims indefinite as the underlying article may change over time. Claims 33-35, 38-40 additionally recite causing “at least one device” in the second group to exchange timing with “at least one other device,” it is unclear if the at least one device resolves the “at least one device,” of the parent claims or comprises an additional or distinct device. Claims 38-40 additionally and ambiguously recite “causing the least one device.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 1-36, 38-41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 7571014 hereinafter Lam further in view of Millington: 20070038999 hereinafter Mil and further in view of Cook: 20120058727 (please see also attached provisional specification provided as Cook_prov_9_26 and hereinafter Cook_prov).
Regarding claim 1
Lam teaches:
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the one or more processors (Lam: Figs 2A-C: one or more players devices 200 operable under direction of one or more controllers 240 to instantiate coded instructions borne in memory upon a processor to accomplish the disclosed methods) such that the computing device is configured to:
assign a first name to a first group of two or more devices (Lam: Col 6:63-7:3, 9:56-9:59; 10:31-10:60, 14:24-14:29; Figs 3A-3C, 4B, 7C, 7D: such as a grouping of players started by a particular player bearing the name of the incorporated players such as shown in the figures e.g. “living room + dining room + kitchen;” or “living room + dining room + kitchen + office;” wherein the assignment of the name occurs upon the grouping of the players and enables the controller to communicate with the devices in a groupwise manner as well as singularly);
at a first time when the computing device is configured to control the first group of two or more devices (Lam: Col 1:35-1:54, 4:14-4:21, 6:63-7:3, 10:41-10:60, 14:24-14:29; Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as when operating upon a group as depicted in the figures such that “ two or more of the zone players may be grouped as one or more groups,”), after obtaining first audio information
(i) transmit the first audio information from the computing device to one or more devices in the first group via a first wireless networking protocol (Lam: Col 5:14-5:21, 6:18-6:23, 6:38-6:60; 7:33-7:38, 12:10-12:25; Figs 3A-3C, 5: such as for communication among a group of players in a portion of a home or enterprise accessible by a first 802.11 type protocol; wireless interfaces of the system operate to communicate with other devices in accordance with a plurality of wireless protocols; system determines audio source in the selected player to be grouped which is then transmitted among the grouped zone players for subsequent output), and
(ii) cause the first group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (Lam: Col 6:10-6:18, 8:50-8:62, 10:1-10:16, 14:6-14:10, 14:28-14:30; Fig 7D: such as by operation of the balance controllers upon the individual players to represent a stereo image over the grouped controllers; “balance” is considered the ordinary technical function of stereo playback equipment wherein a particular channel of a stereo audio signal is routed to a particular first or second device thereof; player in the group directed to output audio synchronously such as under control of the user interface which presents per player controls for members of the group—operation of the per player audio balance control is thus considered to teach a groupwise manner with a stereo effect as audio balance is considered a pair of gain elements acting upon the discrete left and right channels of a stereo signal; it is additionally noted that the instant specification provides no discussion of a “groupwise manner,” or a “stereo effect,” that would obviate such a construal); and
at a second time when the computing device is configured to control a second group of two or more devices to play second audio information from a first source (Lam: Col 1:35-1:54, 4:14-4:21, 6:63-7:3, 10:41-10:60, 14:24-14:29; Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as when operating upon a second different or distinct group at a later time in a manner depicted in the figures; such as for configuring and operating different groups at different times for different sources to play out synchronous audio),
transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to (Lam: Col 5:23-5:53, 6:38-7:3; Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as by communicating instructions from a controller to a zone group head of the second distinct group to playback a particular audio source in the second distinct group and transmit audio to the other players therein)
(i) obtain the second audio information from the first source via a second wireless networking protocol that is different than the first wireless networking protocol (Lam: Col 5:14-5:21, 6:18-6:23, 6:38-6:60, 7:33-7:38, 12:10-12:25; 3A-3C, Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as for communication among a the second distinct group of players in a portion of a home or enterprise accessible by a second 802.11 type protocol; wireless interfaces of the system operate to communicate with other devices in accordance with a plurality of wireless protocols, the instant specification does not describe a new or non-routine wireless protocol mechanism but requires a first protocol and second different protocol and identifies well-known protocols at the time of the disclosure, likewise Lam discloses familiar wireless alternative and uses them conventionally allowing a similar routine selection choice, such as based on available wireless resources at operation—Lam is considered to teach the only broadly reasonable interpretation of this limitation supported by the instant specification; the instant specification teaches no method, instructions, steps, logic, or modules for assignment or selection of particular protocols as asserted in the remarks filed 8/20/26; as such Lams enumeration of a similar set of wireless protocols as the instant application is considered to anticipate the substance of the instant recitation),
(ii) provide at least a portion of the second audio information to at least one other device in the second group (Lam: Col 5:23-5:53, 6:38-7:3; Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as by providing audio to the additional players in the group by the zone group head for playback in keeping with the parameters as directed by user operations upon the user interface), and
(iii) exchange information with the at least one other device in the second group that is used by the second group to play the second audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect where the at least one device in the second group plays a first channel of the second audio information while the at least one other device in the second group plays a second channel of the second audio information, wherein the first channel and the second channel are different (Lam: Col 5:23-5:53, 6:38-7:3; Fig 4B, 7C, 7D: such as by operating the zone group head to provide audio to a second player in the group for playback in keeping with the parameters as directed by user operations upon the user interface; such as by operation of the balance controllers upon the individual players to represent a stereo image over the grouped controllers; left and right channels of stereo information is reliably “different”).
The utility of the Lam user interface to control channel assignment and playback in a group is considered an obvious implementation of the figure 7D user interface; “balance” is considered the ordinary technical function of stereo playback equipment wherein a particular channel of a stereo audio signal is routed to a particular first or second device thereof; balance is thus structurally and technically inseparable form left/right channel attenuation left and right channels of stereo information is reliably “different”. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) understands that adjusting balance in a multi speaker group inherently involves modulating the distribution of output channels across the output endpoints. Further the selection of a particular wireless protocol is considered an obvious implementation for a large home or enterprise accessed by a variety of differently capable or differently configured routers and is functionally satisfied by selecting among the distinct and conventional standards disclosed by Lam; the claim does not recite nor does the specification support a novel protocol conversion, proprietary packet structure or non-routine radio operation. The substitution or employ of different known protocols across separate group operating instances it thus considered a routine exercise of ordinary design choice such as for the purpose of optimizing interoperability among a diverse network of devices.
Lam thus strongly suggests but does not explicitly teach the exchange of timing information sufficient to synchronize the output of devices in a group by exchanging timing information with the at least one other device in the second group sufficient to play second audio information in the second group with a stereo effect. In this regard Examiner notes that Lam expressly incorporates application 10816217 published as Millington: 20070038999 which teaches the required transmission of timing information required for synchronization.
In a related field of endeavor Mil teaches:
A system operable for networking of independently clocked playback devices for synchronous groupwise output of audio (Mil: Abstract; 2, 5); operable to cause in a synchrony group (Mil: ¶ 19-22; Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D, etc.: a synchrony group considered a set of zone players selected to deliver a particular media in synchrony), such as the second group of Lam to exchange timing information with the at least one other device in the second group that is used by the second group to play first, second, etc. audio information selected for delivery by a user in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (Mil: Abstract; ¶ 19-22, 28, 38, 47, 87, 88, 178, etc.: zone player operable to forward audio and timing information to particular other zone players for groupwise synchronous playback of selected audio by the addition of playback timing information transmitted among the devices of a group or system and based on SNTP time acquisition to thereby synchronize independent clock by calculating a differential therebetween); said timing information exchanged bidirectionally among the devices of the group (Mil: ¶ 38: such as based on SNTP messages exchanged among the group) and used by the group to play the audio information (Mil: ¶ 23, 33, 38, 86-88: devices obtain, exchange, etc. audio information and timing information from a source, relay device, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the transmission of timing information as taught or suggested by Mil to thereby maintain synchrony among the grouped devices of Lam for at least the purpose of using the disclosed timing adjustment procedures to maintain or improve synchrony in the delivery of an audio media among the grouped devices of Lam and Mil such as to prevent audio latency, echo, etc., such as to utilize a second group to play selected audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect wherein at least one device in the second group plays a first channel of the second audio information while the at least one other device in the second group plays a second channel of the second audio information, wherein the first channel and the second channel are different by conducting the synchronization steps of Mil in concert with the operation of the Fig 7D user interface of Lam; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
To the extent that Applicant contends that Lams per player audio characteristics do not teach or suggested assigning discrete and different channels of audio information to separate devices of an instantiated group Examiner proffers the following alternate position.
Lam in view of Mil does not explicitly discuss the system operable such that a first device of a group plays a first channel of audio information while a second device of the group plays a second, different channel.
In a related field of endeavor Cook teaches a system and method operable to synchronize device operations by the exchange of timing data between a source device and one or more playback devices wherein a first, coordinator playback device with an source device such as a mobile phone over a first wireless protocol by which audio information is received and used for output of audio by the first device (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: first device 103 operates to acquire audio over a first protocol from computing device 101 over a first protocol; said device 101 comprising a mobile phone; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov) and the first device further operates to receive audio from the source, mobile phone, etc. and communicate said audio in concert with timing information with second, etc. playback devices on the network over a second wireless protocol (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov) wherein the audio information transported to the group of devices is stereo information comprising first and second channels (Cook: Abstract; ¶ 21, 26, 29, 35; Cook_prov: ¶ 9, 10) and the system operates such that one device of the pair obtains the stream and forwards a portion to the other device (Cook: ¶ 29; Fig 3; Cook_prov: ¶ 7, 8, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Cook taught or suggested plurality of wireless protocols to selectably provide media information and timing data thereof over first and second wireless protocols to thereby route particular media by particular first and second protocols to particular players in the Lam in view of Mil particular first and second groups of players, comprising first, and second coordinator, head, and/or access device thereof to thereby provide synchronous music with stereo effects over distinct protocols to the two distinct groups and/or to provide distinct audio to each group for synchronous playback therein; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise further program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to,
at a third time when the computing device is configured to control the second group of two or more devices to play second, third, etc. audio information from a second source,
transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to
(i) obtain second, third, etc. audio information from the second source (Lam: 5:22-5:30, 10:45-10:62, etc.: a same or other instantiated group under control of a controller at a later time operated by the user interface to play different audio information from one among diverse sources); (Mil: ¶ 24: system operates to acquire media form diverse sources deliver same from plural devices in synchrony) (ii) transmit at least a portion of the second audio information to one or more devices in the second group (Lam: Col 12:10-12:27, etc.: audio information, portions thereof, transmitted, made available etc. to players in the group), and
(iii) cause the second group to play the second audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (please sese claim 1 supra). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first audio information comprises
first stereo audio information (Lam: Col 1; Fig 1: system operates to deliver stereo information);
wherein the first group of two or more devices comprises a first device and a second device configured in a first stereo playback configuration (Lam: Fig 7D such as the group instantiated in the figure and operative to deliver stereo audio in concert with balance controls); (Cook: see claim 1 supra), and
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to cause the first group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to:
cause the first device to play a first channel of the first stereo audio information, and cause the second device to play a second channel of the first stereo audio information in synchrony with the first device playing the first channel of the first stereo audio information (Lam: Fig 7D such as the group instantiated in the figure and operative to deliver stereo audio in concert with balance controls); (Cook: see claim 1 supra). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 2,
wherein the second audio information comprises second stereo audio information (Lam: Col 1; Fig 1: system operates to deliver stereo information),
wherein the second group of two or more devices comprises a third device and a fourth device configured in a second stereo playback configuration (Mil: Figs 3A-3C: system operates to group any of a plurality of playback devices on the network; shown in the figures as at least 4 playback devices ), and
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to cause the second group to play the second audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to:
cause the third device to play a first channel of the second stereo audio information, and cause the fourth device to play a second channel of the second stereo audio information in synchrony with the third device playing the first channel of the second stereo audio information (Lam: Fig 7D such as a second group instantiated in a similar manner to the group of the figure and operative to deliver stereo audio in concert with balance controls); (Cook: see claim 1 supra). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 5
Lam in view of DME in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the second group of two or more devices comprises a third device and a fourth device and wherein the program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise further program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to:
after receiving a selection of the third device and the fourth device via a graphical user interface, group the third device and the fourth device into the second group of two or more devices (Lam: Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7D: such as by performance of operations depicted). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 5, wherein the program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise further program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to:
after receiving one or more inputs corresponding to a name for the second group of two or more devices, store the name for the second group of two or more devices (Lam: 10:37-10:62, 12:45-12:56; Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7C: groups are named in concert with a representation of constituent playback device names and stored or buffered in memory in a manner at least sufficient to persist a group name on the user interface such as while the group is in the current instantiation). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 2, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to control the second group of two or more devices to play third audio information from the second source comprise program instructions executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to coordinate with the second source to provide the third audio information to the at least one device in the second group (Lam: Col 6:37-6:61, 10:1-10:11, etc.: when an audio source is stored or accessed through another device, the group coordinates with that device to obtain the audio information). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 8
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to
transmit the first audio information from the computing device to one or more devices in the first group via a first wireless networking protocol (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov; second device 105 operates to receive audio acquired from the first source and relayed through the first device 103 by a protocol distinct form that which the first device communicates from the source; the Wifi and Bluetooth specifications discussed as interchangeably implemented) and
transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to (i) obtain the second audio information from the first source via a second wireless networking protocol that is different than the first wireless networking protocol, (ii) transmit at least a portion of the second audio information to one or more devices in the second group (such as detailed with respect to Lam, Mil and Cook in claim 1 supra), and (iii) cause the second group to play the second audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to transmit the one or more commands via the second wireless networking protocol (see claim 1 supra; Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov: such as by using the taught diverse networks of Cook to communicate with the group coordinator, access, or head devices of the first and second groups of players discussed by Lam and Mil). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 9
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the first wireless networking protocol comprises a Personal Area Network (PAN) protocol (Cook: ¶ 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov: the Bluetooth protocol taught by Cook is considered a personal area network). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 10
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the second wireless networking protocol comprises a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) protocol (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov: the Wifi and Bluetooth specifications discussed as interchangeably implemented and are considered wireless lan protocols). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 11
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 8 wherein the first wireless networking protocol comprises an IEEE 802.15 protocol, and wherein the second wireless networking protocol comprises an IEEE 802.11 protocol (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov: the Wifi and Bluetooth specifications discussed as interchangeably implemented and are considered respectively IEEE 802.11—wifi and IEEE 802.15—bluetooth protocols). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 12
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the first wireless networking protocol comprises a Bluetooth protocol and wherein the second wireless networking protocol comprises a WiFi protocol (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov: the Wifi and Bluetooth specifications discussed as interchangeably implemented and are considered respectively IEEE 802.11—wifi and IEEE 802.15—bluetooth protocols). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 13
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise further program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to one or more of:
control a volume of each of the two or more devices in the first group individually (Lam: Fig 7D: each device bears a volume fader, setting, etc.);
control a volume of all the two or more devices in the first group collectively as the first group Lam: Fig 7D: such as using the group volume fader, setting, etc.);
control a volume of each of the two or more devices in the second group individually (Lam: Fig 7D: each device bears a volume fader, setting, etc.); or
control a volume of all the two or more devices in the second group collectively as the second group (Lam: Fig 7D: each device bears a volume fader, setting, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 14, 15
Lam in view of DME in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises one of a smart phone or a tablet computer with a display screen; [ or an iPhone ] (Lam: Fig 2B, 2C: the controller of the device substantially similar in appearance and configuration to a tablet computer); (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: first device 103 operates to acquire audio over a first protocol from computing device 101 over a first protocol; said device 101 comprising a mobile phone; see additionally ¶ 9, 10; figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the tablet computer of Lam with the capabilities of the smart phone of Cook, for at least the purpose of enabling the controller of the system to cellularly access a wide area network such as the internet; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Further, an iphone is considered an exemplary species of the smart phone discussed by Cook and available prior to the effective filing date of the instant application (please see iphone Wikipedia page provided by Examiner and available 1/14/2011) The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 16
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions stored on the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise further program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is further configured to: after assigning the first name to the first group of two or more devices, storing the first name (Lam: 10:37-10:62, 12:45-12:56; Figs 3A-3C, 7A-7C: groups are named in concert with a representation of constituent playback device names and stored or buffered in memory in a manner at least sufficient to persist a group name on the user interface such as while the group is in the current instantiation).The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 17 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 21 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 22 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 23 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 24 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 25 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 26 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 27 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 11 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 28 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 12 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 29 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 13 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 30, 31 the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 14, 15 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 32 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 16 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 33
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to exchange timing information with the at least one other device in the second group that is used by the second group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to:
cause the least one device in the second group to send a first message from the at least one device in the second group to the at least one other device in the second group (Mil: ¶ 23, 38, 41, 80, 90: a group member obtains timing information by initiating a transaction, sending a message, etc. directly to a second, specific, group member); (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: sharing of data including timing information and audio data; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 34
Lam in view of DME in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to exchange timing information with the at least one other device in the second group that is used by the second group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to:
cause the least one device in the second group to receive a first message from the at least one other device in the second group (Mil: ¶ 23, 37, 38, 41, 80, 90: a group member obtains timing information by initiating a transaction, sending a message, etc. directly to a second, specific, group member which, in receipt of the message, responds appropriately thereto); (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: sharing of data including timing information and audio data; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 35
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group to exchange timing information with the at least one other device in the second group that is used by the second group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect comprise program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors such that the computing device is configured to:
cause the least one device in the second group to send a first message from the at least one device in the second group to the at least one other device in the second group; and cause the least one device in the second group to receive a second message from the at least one other device in the second group in response to the first message (Mil: ¶ 23, 37, 38, 41, 80, 90: a group member obtains timing information by initiating a transaction, sending a message, etc. directly to a second, specific, group member which, in receipt of the message, responds appropriately thereto); (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: sharing of data including timing information and audio data; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 36
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the timing information comprises playback timing (DME: pp 17-177, etc.: such as to maintain playback status of plural output devices); (Cook: ¶ 19, 30; Figs 6, 7: sharing of data including timing information and audio data for synchronous playback of media; see additionally ¶ 9, figures 3, 5 of provided provisional filing Cook_prov). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 37
Lam in view of Mil in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the timing information comprises Simple Network Time Protocol messages (Mil: ¶ 38: SNTP used and disclosed as well known). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Mil and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, Mil and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, Mil and Cook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 38 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 33 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 39 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 34 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 40 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 35 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 41 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 36 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 42 the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 37 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in concert with claim amendments to the independent claims, see remarks and amended claims filed 8/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-42 under 35 USC 103 over Lambourne, DME, and Cook and/or Lambourne, DME, Cook, and Millington have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However Examiner has amended the 112 and art rejections supra to address Applicant’s arguments. Thus the rejections over Lambourne, DME, and Cook and/or Lambourne, DME, Cook, and Millington have been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lambourne, Millington, and Cook. The rejection contains no instances of official notice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
