Response to RCE
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 06/17/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17-20 are pending in the case. Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, 16 are canceled.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Application 17981873 filed 11/07/2022 is a Continuation of PCT/KR2022/016241, filed 10/24/2022 claims foreign priority to 10-2021-0155978, filed 11/12/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-10 are 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 9 recites “cause the electronic device to provide a setting screen for configuring the designated condition through the display”. The underlined portion recites “the designated condition” which lacks antecedent basis since it has not been recited before in the claim nor parent claim 1. Thus, is indefinite. Examiner will assume the Applicant meant to recite “a designated condition” and will apply prior art based on that assumption.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. US 11546685 B2, (hereinafter Burgess) in view of Graham et al. US 11153687 B1, (hereinafter Graham, Cited by Applicant in the IDS 11/28/2023).
As to independent claim 1, Burgess teaches:
An electronic device comprising:
a memory storing instructions (See Col. 11 lines 50-51 – “for example on a non-volatile carrier medium such as a disk, CD- or DVD-ROM, programmed memory such as read only memory (Firmware),”);
a communication module comprising communication circuitry configured to communicate with an external electronic device (See Col. 11 lines 40-45 Communication processor. See also Col. 9 lines 27-30 – “It will be appreciated, however, that the resource allocation module 410 may be implemented in another device, such as a host device communicatively coupled with the headphone 100 (e.g. the host device 304 shown in FIG. 3).”, in other words the headphone 100 is interpreted to be the claimed external electronic device communicating with host device which has communication circuitry. See also Fig. 3); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (See Fig. 3 host device 304), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine that the external electronic device is in a worn state based on receiving a signal from the external electronic device through the communication module (See Col. 8 lines 57-60 – “A wear status is then output from the wear detect module 408 and provided to the resource allocation module 410.”. Taking into context the alternative embodiment disclosed by Col. 11 lines 40-45 cited above, these disclosures explicitly teach the claim.);
In response to determining that the external electronic device is in the worn state, control the communication module to assign:
a higher priority to resource allocation for transmitting a control command for changing an audio output mode of the external electronic device than for transmitting audio data (See Col. 1 line 55-65 and Col. 2 lines 1-10 – “The one or more processors are configured to, on detecting that the first headphone is being worn by the user and that the second headphone is not being worn by the user, allocate the resources of the first headphone to the one or more functions… e. transparency mode;”, in other words high priority resource allocation for transmitting a control command to change an audio output mode to a “transparency mode”. It is understood that the disclosure stating allocating resources for the transparency mode means that a function of transmitting audio data is not prioritized during that time), and
a lower priority to resource allocation for transmitting control information excluding the control command for changing the audio output mode than for transmitting the audio data (As explained above with Col. 1 line 55-65 and Col. 2 lines 1-10, it is understood that the disclosure stating the allocation of resources for transparency mode means other control commands or audio transmission functionality is not prioritized during this time); and
(See Col. 4 lines 58-65 – “The headphone 100 may also operate in a passthrough or transparency mode in which sound incident at the microphone 106, positioned on an external surface of the headphone, is applied to the one or more loudspeakers 102 so that a user wearing the headset 100 is able to hear their ambient acoustic environment which has otherwise been occluded due to them wearing the headset 100 and therefore has ambient awareness”).
Burgess does not teach: in response to executing at least one predetermined application, transmit the control command through the communication module…
Graham teaches: in response to executing at least one predetermined application (See Fig. 8D user interface 820 is indicative of an application being executed relating to the headphone device), transmit the control command through the communication module to the external electronic device to change the audio output mode to an ambient sound listening mode in which an ambient sound is introduced through a speaker of the external electronic device (See Fig. 8D with Col. 51 lines 32-50, user can select a high transparency ambient sound mode which allows the user to listen to introduced background noise (i.e. ambient sound).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of headphone detection causing resource allocation to certain headphone functions such as the ambient sound listening function as taught by Burgess to include applications that can execute an ambient sound listening function as taught by Graham. Motivation for using applications to implement functions includes: Using an application to execute functions offers significant benefits, primarily increasing efficiency through automation, improving code reusability, and enhancing maintainability. Motivation to incorporate Graham as a whole includes incorporating a user interface to make the user interactions with headphone settings less cumbersome and inefficient (Graham Col. 1 lines 30-35).
As to dependent claim 3, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Burgess further teaches: wherein the audio output mode includes an ambient sound canceling mode in which the ambient sound is canceled (See Col. 2 line 1 active noise cancellation mode.).
As to dependent claim 5, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Burgess as modified does not teach: wherein the at least one predetermined application includes at least one of applications configured to notify a user of the execution of the at least one predetermined application and request a response thereto.
Graham further teaches: wherein the at least one predetermined application includes at least one of applications configured to notify a user of the execution of the at least one predetermined application and request a response thereto (See Col. 50 lines 5-20, the phone application is an application that notifies the user of an incoming phone call thus is a notification of the execution of the phone application and requests user’s response to the phone call).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of headphone detection causing resource allocation to certain headphone functions such as the ambient sound listening function as taught by Burgess to include applications for various functions as taught by Graham. Motivation to incorporate Graham as a whole includes incorporating a user interface to make the user interactions with headphone settings less cumbersome and inefficient (Graham Col. 1 lines 30-35).
As to dependent claim 7, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Burgess as modified does not teach: wherein, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, based on the at least one predetermined application being terminated based on the audio output mode of the external electronic device being changed to the ambient sound listening mode according to the transmission of the control command.
control the communication module to transmit the control command for terminating the ambient sound listening mode to the external electronic device.
Graham further teaches: wherein, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, based on the at least one predetermined application being terminated based on the audio output mode of the external electronic device being changed to the ambient sound listening mode according to the transmission of the control command (See paragraph 191 or Col. 51 lines 55-67 and Col. 52 lines 1-10 - “If, for example, electronic device 810 is receiving a phone call and headphones 800 are playing the ringtone for that phone call, or headphones 800 are playing music, headphones 800 optionally operate in a low state of ambient sound transparency (e.g., high noise cancellation and/or low amount of ambient sound pass-through) to increase the ability of the user to hear the ringtone or music. Headphones 800 also optionally operate in a low state of ambient sound transparency if a notification (e.g., ringtone, beep, alarm, or the like) is being played through headphones 800. Optionally, if no content is playing on headphones 800, headphones 800 operate in a state of high ambient sound transparency (e.g., low noise cancellation and high pass-through).”, in other words when the phone application is no longer being executed i.e. has been terminated, this causes the headphones to change the audio output mode to a high ambient sound transparency mode. Examiner notes that the phrase “based on” is broad and can mean “atleast related or relevant”.),
control the communication module to transmit the control command for terminating the ambient sound listening mode to the external electronic device (See paragraph 191 or Col. 51 lines 55-67 and Col. 52 lines 1-10, not only is the headphones able to be in the high ambient sound transparency mode as explained in the limitation above, the headphones are able to terminate this high ambient sound transparency mode and switch to a low state of ambient sound transparency mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of headphone detection causing resource allocation to certain headphone functions such as the ambient sound listening function as taught by Burgess to include applications for various functions as taught by Graham. Motivation to incorporate Graham as a whole includes incorporating a user interface to make the user interactions with headphone settings less cumbersome and inefficient (Graham Col. 1 lines 30-35).
As to independent claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
The claim furthermore states “and monitoring the operation of the external electronic device”, however this is further taught by Graham paragraph 192 – “Furthermore, headphones 800 have the ability to operate at multiple states of ambient sound transparency, corresponding to different levels of noise cancellation and sound transparency”, in other words the determination of context and switching through multiple modes of ambient sound transparency is an on-going process, thus monitoring is involved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of headphone detection causing resource allocation to certain headphone functions such as the ambient sound listening function as taught by Burgess to include monitoring functions as taught by Graham. Motivation to incorporate Graham as a whole includes incorporating a user interface to make the user interactions with headphone settings less cumbersome and inefficient (Graham Col. 1 lines 30-35).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that any “in response to” limitations within method claims such as claim 11 is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation where they are not given patentable weight since they are contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04.
As to dependent claim 13, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 3 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 as cited above.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. US 11546685 B2, (hereinafter Burgess) in view of Graham et al. US 11153687 B1, (hereinafter Graham, Cited by Applicant in the IDS 11/28/2023) in view of Jeong et al. US 11153687 B1, (hereinafter Jeong)
As to dependent claim 8, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Burgess as modified does not teach: wherein the at least one application includes at least one of a payment application, a voice recording application, and an image capturing application.
Jeong teaches: wherein the at least one application includes at least one of a payment application (See Fig. 8 with [0183] payment application), a voice recording application, and an image capturing application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ambient sound mode switching system taught by Burgess to apply the system to payment applications as taught by Jeong. Motivation to do so would be for “The orientation-dependent, context-dependent, and motion-dependent techniques described below provide for more efficient, intuitive, and user-friendly operation of an audio-enabled electronic device” (See Graham paragraph 22). Furthermore, it would be beneficial for said motivation to be applied to payment applications which are often used by users.
As to dependent claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 8 as cited above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. US 11546685 B2, (hereinafter Burgess) in view of Graham et al. US 11153687 B1, (hereinafter Graham, Cited by Applicant in the IDS 11/28/2023) in view of Schneider et al. US 20130283400 A1, (hereinafter Schneider).
As to dependent claim 9, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Burgess as modified does not teach: a display, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to provide a setting screen for configuring the designated condition through the display.
wherein the setting screen include an application list for allowing each of at least one application to be included in the designated condition.
Schneider teaches: a display, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to provide a setting screen for configuring the designated condition through the display (See Fig. 2 with [0021-0024] discloses a method of presenting a screen for selecting one or more applications for configuring them with configuration data 134),
wherein the setting screen may include an application list for allowing each of at least one application to be included in the designated condition (See Fig. 2 with [0021-0024] and as explained above. See also [0025] for examples of what kind of configuration data i.e. designated conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of headphone detection that has been modified to include applications as taught by Burgess modified by Graham to a settings screen for configuring one or more applications with designated settings as taught by Schneider. Motivation to do so would be for easy configuration, see Schneider [0003] – “For non-technical users, such configuration details can be difficult to enter manually into the app, time-consuming, error-prone, and thus pose an impediment to broad and fast adoption of any mobile apps the organization may want to push out.”.
As to dependent claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 9 as cited above.
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. US 11546685 B2, (hereinafter Burgess) in view of Graham et al. US 11153687 B1, (hereinafter Graham, Cited by Applicant in the IDS 11/28/2023) in view of Schneider et al. US 20130283400 A1, (hereinafter Schneider) in view of Kwak et al. US 20190282780 A1, (hereinafter Kwak).
As to dependent claim 10, Burgess as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as cited above.
Burgess teaches the audio output mode of the external electronic device through the display as cited above but Burgess as modified does not teach: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to provide a menu for configuring a volume of the audio signal and a volume of the ambient sound according to the audio output mode of the external electronic device through the display
Kwak teaches: wherein the processor is configured to provide a menu for configuring the volume of the audio signal and the volume of the ambient sound through the display (See Fig. 5A with [0130] background noise slider 550 and music slider 530 are sliders for controlling each of their volume.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ambient sound mode switching system taught by Burgess to include slider bars for manually controlling the volume of background/ambient noise and an application music/sound as taught by Kwak. Motivation to do so would be for “The user can conveniently set the most appropriate environment by adjusting the volume of the background music and the volume of the sleep inducing sound independently of each other.” (See Kwak [0027]).
As to dependent claim 20, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 10 as cited above.
Response to Arguments
112b rejection is made for dependent claim 9 for antecedent basis. The Examiner will assume the Applicant meant to recite “a designated condition” and will apply prior art accordingly to that assumption to facilitate prosecution.
Applicant’s amendment and remarks regarding to the previous 103 rejection has been considered but are rendered moot in view of the new ground of rejections cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171