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 § 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 Yamaha DME designer 3.8 (available in IDS filed 3/26/23, copyright 2010 and hereinafter DME) and further in view of Cook: 20120058727.
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, 10:41-10:60, 14:24-14:29; Figs 3C, 4B, 7C, 7D: such as a grouping of players 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 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), 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: 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), and
(ii) cause the first group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (Lam: Fig 7D: such as by operation of the balance controllers upon the individual players to represent a stereo image over the grouped controllers); 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 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),
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; 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),
(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
Lam strongly suggests the utility of a first and second wireless networking protocol; as the specification is spare of detail regarding the functionality claimed; Lam strongly suggests the recited operations to impart the claimed stereo effect Lam does not offer explicit discussion of the functionality of such operations; Lam does not explicitly teach the system operable to (iii) 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 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.
In a related field of endeavor DME teaches:
A system operable to:
assign a first name to a first group of two or more devices (DME: pp 3-8, 503-511; Ch 4: system operable to generate, edit, name and save, and instantiate plural signal deliver configurations);
at a first time when the computing device is configured to control the first group of two or more devices (DME: pp 3-8, 503-511; Ch 4: such as by the instantiation of a first named configuration),
after obtaining first audio information (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as an input from a microphone, mixer, or an input component such as an external head amp, wav file player, etc.);
(i) transmit the first audio information from the computing device to one or more devices in the first group (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as instruction of a DME device(s) to instantiate: a first downstream component group thereof or device, group thereof configured to process and or/deliver a first output of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component in concert with a second downstream component group thereof or device, group thereof configured to process and or/deliver a second output of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component) and
(ii) cause the first group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as by synchronous output of the first channel by the first group and the second channel by the second group); 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 503-511; Ch 4: such as by the instantiation of a second named configuration with respect to the same similar input of the first configuration),
transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as instruction of a DME device to instantiate a particular configuration of components upon a set of devices, components attached thereto) to
(i) obtain the second audio information from the first source (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as a second output of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc.),
(ii) provide at least a portion of the second audio information to at least one other device in the second group (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as by use of a routing, cascade, mycard, etc. component in concert with first, second, etc. DME to instantiate: first, second, etc. downstream component groups to process and or/deliver first, second, etc. outputs of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component), and
(iii) coordinate with the at least one other device in the second group used by the second group to play the first audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as by synchronous output of the first channel by the first group and the second channel by the second group in a manner which allows the variously discussed panner, mixer, or other modules to operate by exchange of channel information across the DME type devices in the instantiated scene, in this way a user operation of a panning control such as an instantiated panner and/or a panning control within an instantiated mixer operates to move a portion of the signal, channel of the signal, etc. from left across center to right or vice versa which in the case of appropriate instantiation and routing effectively conveys the signal across DME type devices; please see additionally DME: pp 176, 177, 211, 218-220, etc.: system operates to produce a synchronous output by the sharing of a word clock and displays when the various devices are locked for output or running free from locked synchrony in this way the system automatically compensates for delays among a group of devices which distributes delay parameters as part of a groupwise instantiation);
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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496: a first component, device, etc. signal chain connected to a first output of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component in synchrony with a second component, device, etc. signal chain connected to a second output of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component). Lam additionally teaches the utility of transmitting audio information from the computing device to one or more devices in a first group via a first wireless networking protocol and obtain the second audio information from the first source via the wireless networking protocol (DME: pp 488-490; such as the mutually distinct Cobranet wireless protocol; please see included Cobranet documentation provided by Examiner; wireless operation of cobranet is considered a distinct protocol from the various wireless protocols discussed by Lam).
DME strongly suggests the exchange of timing information among devices of the group in a manner sufficient to distribute clock information from a first or coordinating device to the remaining device in the network and to receive timing information from said devices operable to display various device-wise relationships to the distributed clock information (DME: pp 17-177, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to operate the Lam system and method in concert with the DME taught methods for storing groupwise device configurations by name; for operating particular output devices, channels thereof; to impart a stereo effect by separate management of channels among plural devices synchronized by the exchange of clock information; and to thereby selectably utilize an additional wireless networking protocol distinct from those taught by Lam for addressing different output configurations of devices and channels for at least the purpose of scaling a system, timing synchronized groups thereof for a large home or diverse enterprise while providing users, operators, etc. with greater granularity of control and diverse choices of wireless networks; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Lam in view of DME does not explicitly discuss the system operative upon a computing device comprising: exchange timing information with the at least one other device in the second group such that the system may operate to manage timing with respect to a first and second synchronized playback device said first and second device operable upon a first and second distinct wireless protocol.
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). 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 the Lam in view of DME particular first and second groups of players, comprising first, and second coordinator, head, and/or access device thereof to thereby provide synchronous music 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.
In a related field of endeavor Shim teaches a system and method for operating a plurality of processing engines upon a plurality of processors, DSP’s, etc. in concert with coded instructions retrieved from memory (Shim: ¶ 6, 27; Fig 1, 2: system operative of hardware equipment such as a plurality of DME devices, etc. said hardware operative to execute DME operating system, components, software, etc.) said system, method, operative of music LAN for the purpose of configuring signal processing channels between sources and sinks for delivery of synchronized media to a user (Shim: ¶ 55; Fig 1, 2, 4: such as depicted in figure 4). Shim essentially discloses a network of DME type devices (Shim: ¶ 6) each/any device operable to operate by transmission, relay, etc. of timing data packets across any/all DME type devices in an instantiation used by the devices to maintain synchronous output (Shim: ¶ 68-71; Fig 5). 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 processors under direction of coded instructions retrieved from memory in concert with timing data such as that taught by Shim to maintain synchrony with a music LAN such as that disclosed by DME such as for the purpose of maintaining synchrony among user configured signal paths on diverse devices operative for input, processing, routing and output of multichannel audio across two or more devices in a DME type device network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of DME 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 third audio information from a second source (DME: pp 3-8, 503-511; Ch 4: such as by the instantiation of a third named configuration),
transmit one or more commands that cause at least one device in the second group (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as instruction of a DME device to instantiate a particular configuration of components upon a set of devices, components attached thereto) to
(i) obtain the second audio information from the second source (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as one or more outputs of a second of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc.), (ii) transmit at least a portion of the second audio information to one or more devices in the second group (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as by use of a routing, cascade, mycard, etc. component in concert with first, second, etc. DME to instantiate: first, second, etc. downstream component groups to process and or/deliver first, second, etc. outputs of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component), and
(iii) cause the second group to play the second audio information in a groupwise manner with a stereo effect (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as by synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group). The claim is considered obvious over DME as modified by Shim and Mil as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of DME, Shim and/or Mil to the modified device of DME, Shim and Mil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon. The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of DME in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first audio information comprises
first stereo audio information (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as an input from a stereo microphone, stereo mixer, or a stereo input component from an external head amp, wav file player, etc.);
wherein the first group of two or more devices comprises a first device and a second device configured in a first stereo playback configuration (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by specific configuration for synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group in concert with direct routing or any of a plurality of panning components), 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by routine operation of the system) 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by specific configuration for synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group in concert with direct routing thereof or by operation of any of a plurality of included panning components). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of DME in view of Cook teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 2,
wherein the second audio information comprises second stereo audio information (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511: such as an input from a stereo microphone, stereo mixer, or a stereo input component from an external head amp, wav file player, etc.),
wherein the second group of two or more devices comprises a third device and a fourth device configured in a second stereo playback configuration (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by specific configuration for synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group in concert with direct routing or any of a plurality of panning components said output upon channels, output devices, etc. distinct from the first and second channel but similarly operable upon a third, fourth, etc. channel, output device, etc.), 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by routine operation of the system) 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by specific configuration for synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group in concert with direct routing or any of a plurality of panning components said output upon channels, output devices, etc. distinct from the first and second channel but similarly operable). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511: such as by specific configuration for synchronous output of the first channel and the second channel by output channels and/or output device(s) within the second group in concert with direct routing or any of a plurality of panning components said output upon channels, output devices, etc. distinct from the first and second channel but similarly operable upon a third, fourth, etc. channel, output device, etc., 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428-457, 482-496, 503-511:such as by creation, editing and subsequent instantiation of a configuration wherein the third, fourth, etc. device are included within the second group). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of DME 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 (DME: Ch 4, 5: such as by creation, editing, naming and/or saving of a particular configuration). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of DME 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as by use of a routing, cascade, mycard, etc. component in concert with first, second, etc. DME to instantiate: first, second, etc. downstream component groups to process and or/deliver first, second, etc. outputs of a mixer, external head amp, wav file player, etc. component). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
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 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, DME 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 [[a]] 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 or head devices of the first and second groups of players discussed by Lam and DME). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Lam in view of DME 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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Lam in view of DME 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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Lam in view of DME 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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Lam in view of DME 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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Lam in view of DME 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 (DME: 416, 429-461 such as by the use of appropriate source selection, router, pan, mixer, fader, etc. components);
control a volume of all the two or more devices in the first group collectively as the first group (DME: 416, 429-461 such as by the use of appropriate source selection, router, pan, mixer, fader, etc. components);
control a volume of each of the two or more devices in the second group individually (DME: 416, 429-461 such as by the use of appropriate source selection, router, pan, mixer, fader, etc. components); or
control a volume of all the two or more devices in the second group collectively as the second group (DME: 416, 429-461 such as by the use of appropriate source selection, router, pan, mixer, fader, etc. components). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
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 (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). Further, Examiner has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it is thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that the utility of the recited phone, table, etc. devices as control devices for a plurality of networks of synchronous playback devices would have comprised an obvious inclusion. 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 thus considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Lam in view of DME 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 503-511; Ch 4: system operable to generate, edit, name and save, and instantiate plural signal deliver configurations). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
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 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 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as the instantiation of a scene or configuration wherein a first DME type device receives a first channel and second channel from a WAV player and controls routing; as well as processing and outputs for a first channel to a set of first DME device audio outputs such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a first amplifier, speaker etc. channel; and output of a second channel to a second DME type device for processing and output such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a second amplifier, speaker, etc. channel; messages are considered audio data, control, and parameter setting messages; please see additionally DME: pp 176, 177, 211, 218-220, etc.: system operates to produce a synchronous output by the sharing of a word clock and displays when the various devices are locked for output or running free from locked synchrony in this way the system automatically compensates for delays among a group of devices which distributes delay parameters as part of a groupwise instantiation); (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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as the instantiation of a scene or configuration wherein a first DME type device receives a first channel and second channel from a WAV player and controls routing; as well as processing and outputs for a first channel to a set of first DME device audio outputs such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a first amplifier, speaker etc. channel; and output of a second channel to a second DME type device for processing and output such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a second amplifier, speaker, etc. channel; messages are considered audio data, control, and parameter setting messages; the second device receives and acts upon the messages sent; please see additionally DME: pp 176, 177, 211, 218-220, etc.: system operates to produce a synchronous output by the sharing of a word clock and displays when the various devices are locked for output or running free from locked synchrony in this way the system automatically compensates for delays among a group of devices which distributes delay parameters as part of a groupwise instantiation); (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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 35
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 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 (DME: pp 3-8, 428, 482-496, 503-511; Ch 6: such as the instantiation of a scene or configuration wherein a first DME type device receives a first channel and second channel from a WAV player and controls routing; as well as processing and outputs for a first channel to a set of first DME device audio outputs such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a first amplifier, speaker etc. channel; and output of a second channel to a second DME type device for processing and output such as over an analog out, slot out, mycard out, etc. to a second amplifier, speaker, etc. channel; messages are considered audio data, control, and parameter setting messages; the second device receives and acts upon the messages sent; please see additionally DME: pp 176, 177, 211, 218-220, etc.: system operates to produce a synchronous output by the sharing of a word clock and displays when the various devices are locked for output or running free from locked synchrony in this way the system automatically compensates for delays among a group of devices which distributes delay parameters as part of a groupwise instantiation); (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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 36
Lam in view of DME 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 ID3 and Cook as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, ID3, and/or Cook to the modified device of Lam, ID3 and Cook; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
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.
Claims 37, 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourne: 7571014 hereinafter Lam further in view of Yamaha DME designer 3.8 (available in IDS filed 3/26/23, copyright 2010 and hereinafter DME) and further in view of Cook: 20120058727 and further in view of as directed to claims 1-36, 38-41 supra and further in view of Millington: 20070038999 hereinafter Mil.
Regarding claim 37
DME in view of Shim in view of Mil does not explicitly discuss the timing information comprising Simple Network Time Protocol messages.
In a related field of endeavor Mil teaches a system and method operative to synchronize one or more playback devices comprising transmission and exchange of playback timing information among devices on a network of synchronized playback devices by dynamically determining time delays and exchanging timing, clock, and control, etc. data among devices on the network (Mil: 1 41, 47, 48, 71, 178, 181, 195-197, etc.) wherein the timing information comprises Simple Network Time Protocol messages (Mil: ¶ 38: SNTP used and disclosed as well known). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt or improve latency in the Lam in view of DME in view of Cook system and method, such as by including steps for controlling latency and synchrony of devices using SNTP as taught or suggested by Mil for at least the purpose of improving overall synchrony of devices such as to avoid echo effects or audible shadows which result from synchrony errors; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
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 see remarks and amended claims, filed 2/12/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 13-26, 29-32 under USC 103 over DME in view of Shimizu in view of Millington claims 11, 12, 27, 28 under USC 103 over DME in view of Shimizu in view of Millington in view of Solomon have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lambourne, DME, and Cook and/or Lambourne, DME, Cook, and Millington. Where Applicant has traversed official notice Examiner has provided additional mapping to the teachings of Cook inline in the art rejection supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights