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
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,291,986. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regard to claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of claim 1 because:
The closest prior art of record, Meaney et al. (US 9484030 B1), teaches an audio system, comprising:
a communication interface (Fig. 11: 1102 or 1124) configured to obtain first audio data and second audio data from an audio data source (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: first sound);
memory (Fig. 11: 1106) communicatively coupled to the communication interface, the memory configured to store first audio data and second audio data (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: second sound);
a first sensor (Fig. 11: 104) configured to detect a first condition of an environment and to produce a first sensor output signal that represents the detected first condition of the environment (detx90, paragraph spanning cols. 19-20: e.g., door opening);
a first set of one or more processors (Fig. 11: 1104) communicatively coupled to the memory and the first sensor, the first set of one or more processors configured to cause performance of operations, the operations including:
a first speaker (Fig. 11: 1160) communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the first speaker configured to provide an audio experience based on the first audio signal (detx18, col. 2, lines 11-28: outputting speech using TTS processing).
Meaney is not relied upon to disclose
generate a first audio signal including the first audio data; and
adjust the first audio signal to include the second audio data based on the first sensor output signal.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Meaney fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
In regard to claim 9, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of claim 9 because:
The closest prior art of record, Meaney, teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a first location of a first speaker in an environment (detx72, col. 15, lines 17-32);
obtaining first audio data (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: first sound);
obtaining second audio data (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: second sound);
receiving a first indication of a first condition of the environment from a first sensor (detx90, paragraph spanning cols. 19-20: e.g., door opening).
Meaney fails to disclose
generating a first audio signal including the first audio data based on the location of the first speaker in the environment; and
adjusting the first audio signal to include the second audio data in response to the first indication of the first condition of the environment, and based on the first location of the first speaker in the environment.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Meaney fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
In regard to claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of claim 18 because:
The closest prior art of record, Meaney, teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
obtain a first location of a first speaker in an environment (detx72, col. 15, lines 17-32);
obtain first audio data (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: first sound);
obtain second audio data (detx21, paragraph spanning cols. 2-3: second sound);
receive an indication of a condition of the environment from a sensor (detx90, paragraph spanning cols. 19-20: e.g., door opening).
Meaney is not relied upon to disclose
generate a first audio signal including the first audio data based on the first location of the first speaker in the environment; and
adjust the first audio signal to include the second audio data in response to the indication of the condition of the environment, and based on the first location of the first speaker in the environment.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Meaney fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, 19, 20 are dependent upon allowed base claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights