DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the non-final office action dated 05/18/2026, applicant has amended claims 13 and 15-17. Claims 11-20 are currently pending in the application.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the synchronized controller application" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of a synchronized controller application in the claim. Claim 19 line 23 has the same issue. Claims 18 and 20 are also rejected due to their dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0195769, hereinafter Chang) in view of Hayward (US Patent No. 9832241, hereinafter Hayward) and Family et al (U.S. Patent No. 10063968, hereinafter Family).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches a method for substantially automatically establishing secure communications (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & ¶ [0025] lines 1-5, automatic pairing sequence begins when device is powered on) between similar audio devices (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b), comprising: determining that at least two of the audio devices in the audio distribution network are similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to specific devices, manufacturers, and software versions), wherein the similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer); designating one of the at least two similar audio devices as the controlling audio device (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 6-14, establishes a master/slave designation during the pairing process), and setting up secure communications by the controlling audio device between all of the similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 14-27, only the master speaker is in communication with the slave devices meaning all Bluetooth pairing and communications protocols flow from the master device to slave device), and wherein communications between the similar audio devices thereafter use the secure communications protocol (See Chang Fig 2 BT(A2DP) & ¶ [0030] lines 11-13, data communication using Bluetooth Advanced Audio Distribution Profile).
Chang teaches devices capable of wireless network communication ¶ [0017] but does not explicitly teach communications using internet protocol (IP); proprietary communications protocol; or using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device.
Hayward teaches communications using internet protocol (IP) (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, network communication over internet); and proprietary communications protocol (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, proprietary network communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the internet protocol and proprietary protocol taught by Hayward with the method taught by Chang. Both internet protocol communication and proprietary communication are well known in the art and widely used to facilitate communication between devices. Internet protocol (IP) is a standardized rule that defines how data is formatted, addressed, transmitted, and received across networks regardless of manufacturer, operating system, or location. Proprietary communications protocols allow for tailored security and performance of manufacturer specific devices.
Chang in view of Hayward does not explicitly teach using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device.
Family teaches using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device (See Family column 10 lines 21-27, designating master based on lowest MAC address).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the communications protocols taught by Family with the pairing sequence taught by Chang in view of Hayward. MAC filtering within a network of paired devices is well known in the art and enables a user to configure how devices connect and communicate as pointed out by Family (column 10 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 14, Chang teaches an audio distribution system (See Chang Abstract, wireless speaker systems), comprising: at least two or more similar audio devices (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b), wherein each of the at least two or more similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer) and share a secure communications protocol (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 8-10, paired devices use Bluetooth v4.0), and wherein each of the at least two or more similar audio devices comprises: at least one processor (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, digital signal processor); a memory operatively connected with the at least one processor (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, memory), wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, computer-executable instructions are required to perform the described functions) that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute a method (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300) that comprises establishing communications between at least two audio devices in an audio distribution network (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b); determining that at least two of the audio devices in the audio distribution network are similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to specific devices, manufacturers, and software versions), wherein the similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer); designating one of the at least two similar audio devices as the controlling audio device (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 6-14, establishes a master/slave designation during the pairing process); and setting up secure communications by the controlling audio device between all of the similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 14-27, only the master speaker is in communication with the slave devices meaning all Bluetooth pairing and communications protocols flow from the master device to slave device), and wherein communications between the similar audio devices thereafter use the secure communications protocol (See Chang Fig 2 BT(A2DP) & ¶ [0030] lines 11-13, data communication using Bluetooth Advanced Audio Distribution Profile).
Chang teaches devices capable of wireless network communication ¶ [0017] but does not explicitly teach communications using internet protocol (IP); proprietary communications protocol; or using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device.
Hayward teaches communications using internet protocol (IP) (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, network communication over internet); and proprietary communications protocol (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, proprietary network communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the internet protocol and proprietary protocol taught by Hayward with the method taught by Chang. Both internet protocol communication and proprietary communication are well known in the art and widely used to facilitate communication between devices. Internet protocol (IP) is a standardized rule that defines how data is formatted, addressed, transmitted, and received across networks regardless of manufacturer, operating system, or location. Proprietary communications protocols allow for tailored security and performance of manufacturer specific devices.
Chang in view of Hayward does not explicitly teach using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device.
Family teaches using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device (See Family column 10 lines 21-27, designating master based on lowest MAC address).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the communications protocols taught by Family with the pairing sequence taught by Chang in view of Hayward. MAC filtering within a network of paired devices is well known in the art and enables a user to configure how devices connect and communicate as pointed out by Family (column 10 lines 23-27).
Claim(s) 12, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0195769, hereinafter Chang) in view of Hayward (US Patent No. 9832241, hereinafter Hayward) and Family et al (U.S. Patent No. 10063968, hereinafter Family) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Shani et al (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0262120).
Regarding claim 12, Chang in view of Hayward and Family teaches the method according to claim 11.
Chang in view of Hayward and Family does not explicitly teach storing a synchronized controller application on at least two similar audio devices.
Shani teaches storing a synchronized controller application on at least two similar audio devices (See Shani Fig 3, master device 302 and slave device 304 having stored sync controller applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the synchronized controller application taught by Shani with the method taught by Chang in view of Hayward and Family. Synchronization applications are well known in the art and provide wireless control data from a master device to slave devices as stated by Shani (¶ [0020] lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 15, Chang in view of Hayward and Family teaches the audio distribution system according to claim 14.
Chang in view of Hayward and Family does not explicitly teach storing a synchronized controller application on at least two similar audio devices.
Shani teaches storing a synchronized controller application on at least two similar audio devices (See Shani Fig 3, master device 302 and slave device 304 having stored sync controller applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the synchronized controller application taught by Shani with the method taught by Chang in view of Hayward and Family. Synchronization applications are well known in the art and provide wireless control data from a master device to slave devices as stated by Shani (¶ [0020] lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 17, Chang teaches a method for substantially automatically establishing secure communications (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & ¶ [0025] lines 1-5, automatic pairing sequence begins when device is powered on) between similar audio devices (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b), comprising: establishing communications between at least two audio devices in an audio distribution network (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & ¶ [0025] lines 1-5, automatic pairing sequence begins when device is powered on); determining that at least two of the audio devices in the audio distribution network are similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to specific devices, manufacturers, and software versions), wherein the similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer); designating one of the at least two similar audio devices as a controlling audio device (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 6-14, establishes a master/slave designation during the pairing process); and setting up secure communications by the controlling audio device between all of the similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 14-27, only the master speaker is in communication with the slave devices meaning all Bluetooth pairing and communications protocols flow from the master device to slave device) using the secure communications protocol, and wherein communications between the similar audio devices thereafter use the secure communications protocol (See Chang Fig 2 BT(A2DP) & ¶ [0030] lines 11-13, data communication using Bluetooth Advanced Audio Distribution Profile).
Chang does not explicitly teach communications using internet protocol (IP); proprietary communications protocol; using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device, or a synchronized controller application.
Hayward teaches communications using internet protocol (IP) (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, network communication over internet); and proprietary communications protocol (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, proprietary network communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the internet protocol and proprietary protocol taught by Hayward with the method taught by Chang. Both internet protocol communication and proprietary communication are well known in the art and widely used to facilitate communication between devices. Internet protocol (IP) is a standardized rule that defines how data is formatted, addressed, transmitted, and received across networks regardless of manufacturer, operating system, or location. Proprietary communications protocols allow for tailored security and performance of manufacturer specific devices.
Chang in view of Hayward does not explicitly teach using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device or a synchronized controller application.
Family teaches using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device (See Family column 10 lines 21-27, designating master based on lowest MAC address).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the communications protocols taught by Family with the pairing sequence taught by Chang in view of Hayward. MAC filtering within a network of paired devices is well known in the art and enables a user to configure how devices connect and communicate as pointed out by Family (column 10 lines 23-27).
Chang in view of Hayward and Family does not explicitly teach a synchronized controller application.
Shani teaches storing a synchronized controller application (See Shani Fig 3, master device 302 and slave device 304 having stored sync controller applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the synchronized controller application taught by Shani with the method taught by Chang in view of Hayward and Family. Synchronization applications are well known in the art and can provide wireless control data from a master device to slave devices as stated by Shani (¶ [0020] lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 19, Chang teaches an audio distribution system (See Chang Abstract, wireless speaker systems), comprising: at least two or more similar audio devices (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b), wherein each of the at least two or more similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer) and share a secure communications protocol (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 8-10, paired devices use Bluetooth v4.0), and wherein each of the at least two or more similar audio devices comprises: at least one processor (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, digital signal processor); a memory operatively connected with the at least one processor (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, memory), wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions (See Chang ¶ [0019] lines 11-14, computer-executable instructions are required to perform the described functions) that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute a method (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300) that comprises establishing communications between at least two audio devices in an audio distribution network (See Chang Fig 3 Pairing Sequence 300 & wireless speaker assemblies 200a-b); determining that at least two of the audio devices in the audio distribution network are similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to specific devices, manufacturers, and software versions), wherein the similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 27-29, device pairing can be restricted to devices with the same manufacturer); designating one of the at least two similar audio devices as the controlling audio device (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 6-14, establishes a master/slave designation during the pairing process); and setting up secure communications by the controlling audio device between all of the similar audio devices (See Chang ¶ [0023] lines 14-27, only the master speaker is in communication with the slave devices meaning all Bluetooth pairing and communications protocols flow from the master device to slave device), and wherein communications between the similar audio devices thereafter use the secure communications protocol (See Chang Fig 2 BT(A2DP) & ¶ [0030] lines 11-13, data communication using Bluetooth Advanced Audio Distribution Profile).
Hayward teaches communications using internet protocol (IP) (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, network communication over internet); and proprietary communications protocol (See Hayward column 14 lines 5-22, proprietary network communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the internet protocol and proprietary protocol taught by Hayward with the method taught by Chang. Both internet protocol communication and proprietary communication are well known in the art and widely used to facilitate communication between devices. Internet protocol (IP) is a standardized rule that defines how data is formatted, addressed, transmitted, and received across networks regardless of manufacturer, operating system, or location. Proprietary communications protocols allow for tailored security and performance of manufacturer specific devices.
Chang in view of Hayward does not explicitly teach using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device.
Family teaches using the lowest media access control (MAC) address to designate a controlling audio device (See Family column 10 lines 21-27, designating master based on lowest MAC address).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the communications protocols taught by Family with the pairing sequence taught by Chang in view of Hayward. MAC filtering within a network of paired devices is well known in the art and enables a user to configure how devices connect and communicate as pointed out by Family (column 10 lines 23-27).
Chang in view of Hayward and Family does not explicitly teach a synchronized controller application.
Shani teaches storing a synchronized controller application (See Shani Fig 3, master device 302 and slave device 304 having stored sync controller applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the synchronized controller application taught by Shani with the method taught by Chang in view of Hayward and Family. Synchronization applications are well known in the art and can provide wireless control data from a master device to slave devices as stated by Shani (¶ [0020] lines 7-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph”, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to claims 13, 15 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of 05/18/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 regarding claims 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to claim 17 does not resolve the 35 U.S.C. § 112 presented in the non-final office action dated 05/18/2026. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claim 19 was not addressed by applicant. Claims 18 and 20 remain rejected due to their dependency on claims 17 and 19.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Pages 2-3 of applicant’s arguments state the prior art Chang does not disclose “similar audio devices are manufactured by the same manufacturer”. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Chang ¶ [0023] states “pairing of wireless speakers assemblies 200 can be restricted to pair only with certain devices, manufacturers, software version, and the like.” Therefore, Chang reads on the recited claim element. Further, applicant states that one or more of the cited prior art is either non-analogous, not relevant, and/or in combination lacks a reasonable expectation of success. Again, the examiner disagrees as the prior arts recited in the office action dated 05/18/2026 all pertain to functions of data networks within audio distribution systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Healy et al (US Pub No. 2021/0235192) teaches distributed amplification and control system for immersive audio multi-channel amplifier.
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 TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6:30 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 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
