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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen et al. in view of Pelland et al. (CA 2720785)
Re claim 28: Boesen et al teaches a wireless high resolution headphone device (paragraph [0065]) comprising:
a first earpiece and a second earpiece each containing a speaker (figure 1, (102) along with paragraph [0045]);
an ultra-wide band (UWB) wireless transceiver unit in the first earpiece or the second earpiece configured to communicate with an external device to receive high-resolution audio content and control and/or configuration signals from the external user device (paragraph [0098], (416) that communicates with (404) along with paragraph [0030], playback of audio and control, communicate, manage or interact with the peripheral, paragraph [0035]);
a cellular transceiver (See paragraph [0031] teaching the earpiece(s) can communicate with a cellular transceiver directly with a media source such as network (12) via a peripheral (118). Also note in figure 1 the media source (120) is remote from the headphone devices (102) and the external user device (118)
at least one processor (410), figure 4 in the first earpiece or the second earpiece configured to receive and process the high-resolution audio content received by the UWB wireless transceiver unit (416) to generate audio output signals (for playback, paragraph [0030]), the at least one processor also configured to receive and process the control and/or configuration signals received by the UWB wireless transceiver unit to control operation of and configure the headphone device (by the use of a set of instructions, paragraphs [0013] and [0027]);
one or more audio amplifiers in the first earpiece or the second earpiece for amplifying the audio output signals to drive the first and second speakers to render an audio output (amplifiers, paragraph [0065]); and
a rechargeable battery (figure 4 element (408), paragraph [0090] along with paragraphs [0046 and 0100]) for charging the earpieces for powering components of the headphone device. Additionally, with the newly set forth limitation “without relay through any intermediate media source”; note paragraphs [0035] in which the earpieces may communicate with a personal network and paragraph [0086] in which the wireless earpieces (402) may communicate directly with one or more networks; i.e. without relay through any intermediate media source as set forth. Boesen et al. however does not teach that the media source is as now amended “an audio streaming server”, i.e. an internet audio service. Pelland et al. teaches in a similar environment that earpieces can connect directly to an internet audio service (70), see discussion in page 6, lines 18-29 providing an optional mode of operation for an earpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Pelland et al. into the arrangement of Boesen et al. to predictably provide an optional mode of operation for the earpiece, i.e. direct connection to a audio streaming server. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 29: note the external device (104, 118, 304, 404, 804) can be a mobile phone (smart phone, paragraph [0033] or a computer, paragraph [0035])
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, 18-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker et al. (US 2018/0270753 A1) in view of Pelland et al. (CA 2720785)
Re claim 1: Recker et al. teaches a wireless high-resolution headphones device ((100), (paragraph [0019]), comprising:
a first earpiece containing a first speaker (earbud, such as (100A) having a component required to provide audio to the user);
a second earpiece containing a second speaker (earbud, such as (100B) having a component required to provide audio to the user);
a first wireless transceiver unit (120), figure 1C configured to operate at a first bandwidth (Bluetooth connection (104A)) to communicate with an external user device (102), paragraph [0019]) to receive control and/or configuration signals from the external user device;
a second wireless transceiver unit (122), figure 1C configured to operate at a second bandwidth (WIFI connection (110) greater than the first bandwidth to communicate directly with a media source remote (106) by use or (102) that retransmits the media, paragraph [0019] from both the headphones device and the external user device (102) to receive high-resolution audio content from the media source;
at least one processor ((within (124) including that structure needed for the running of software as discussed in paragraph [0025]) configured to receive and process the high-resolution audio content received by the second wireless transceiver unit to generate audio output signals, the at least one processor also configured to receive and process the control and/or configuration signals received by the first wireless transceiver unit to control operation of and configure the headphones device;
one or more audio amplifiers (paragraph [0025] that is within earbud) each for amplifying the audio output signals to drive the first and second speakers to render an audio output; and
a rechargeable battery (paragraph [0026], non-removeable battery along charger) for powering components of the headphones device. Recker et al. does not teach as now set forth by amendment to communicate directly “without relay through any intermediate media source with an audio streaming server”, i.e. an internet audio service. Pelland et al. teaches in a similar environment that earpieces can connect directly to an internet audio service (70), see discussion in page 6, lines 18-29 providing an optional mode of operation for an earpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Pelland et al. into the arrangement of Recker et al. to predictably provide an optional mode of operation for the earpiece, i.e. direct connection to an audio streaming server. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 18: Recker et al. teaches a method of playing high-resolution audio on a wireless headphone’s device ((100), (paragraph [0019]), comprising the steps of:
processing control and/or configuration signals (by operation of processor (within (124) including that structure needed for the running of software as discussed in paragraph [0025]) received from an external user device (102) at a first wireless transceiver unit (122) in the headphones device to control operation of and configure the headphones device, said first wireless transceiver unit configured to operate at a first bandwidth (Bluetooth connection (104A));
processing high-resolution audio content received directly from an online media source (by operation of processor (within (124) including that structure needed for the running of software as discussed in paragraph [0025] along with by use of (102) that retransmits the media, paragraph [0019]) remote from both the headphones device and the external user device at a second wireless transceiver unit (122) to generate audio output signals, said second wireless transceiver unit configured to operate at a second bandwidth greater than the first bandwidth (WIFI connection (110)); and
amplifying the audio output signals to drive first and second speakers (earbuds, such as (100A, 100B) having a component required to provide audio to the user); in the headphones device (paragraph [0025] by use of amplifier(s) that is within earbud(s)) to render an audio output. Recker et al. does not teach as now set forth by amendment to communicate directly “without relay through any intermediate media source with an audio streaming server”, i.e. an internet audio service. Pelland et al. teaches in a similar environment that earpieces can connect directly to an internet audio service (70), see discussion in page 6, lines 18-29 providing an optional mode of operation for an earpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Pelland et al. into the arrangement of Recker et al. to predictably provide an optional mode of operation for the earpiece, i.e. direct connection to an audio streaming server. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claims 2, 19: short range protocol (104), paragraph [0019]
Re claims 3, 20: Bluetooth short range protocol (104), figure 1C, paragraph [0019]
Re claims 4 and 21: note connection (110) can be cellular (paragraph [0025])
Re claims 6-7, 22-23: note paragraph [0022] suggesting possible types of connections used for connection (110) including a 802.11B connection which is an older type that provides a maximum connection speed of 11 Mbps (by definition) satisfying as claimed a connection of at least 8 Mbps (claim 6) and a connection of 8-16 Mbps (claim 7)
Re claims 12 and 24: note that device (102) can include various sources such as a smart phone or wearable computer (paragraph [0019]) satisfying at least one of the alternatively claimed devices
Re claims 13 and 25: the wearable computer (paragraph [0019] covers all types of wearable computers including a smart watch type as set forth
Re claims 15-16 and 27: see paragraph [0018] in which the arrangement taught is for sampling rates at 96 KHz satisfying those rates set forth in claims 15, 16 and 27.
Re claim 11: Additionally, the use of a flash memory or a random access memory is taught by Pelland et al., not present in Recker et al. Specifically, Pelland et al. teaches such elements (page 8, lines 20-33) in a similar environment to provide a software embodiment of headphone control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Pelland et al. into the arrangement of Recker et al. to predictably provide a software embodiment of headphone control. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 5: The teaching of Recker et al.is discussed above and incorporated herein. Recker et al. does not specifically mention that the headphone being used includes a headband. Pelland et al. teaches in a similar environment the headphones include a headband to allow for each ear portion to be held adjacent a user’s ears by being worn of the user’s head (see element 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the headband as taught by Pelland et al. into the headphone arrangement of Recker et al. as applied to predictably provide a means for holding the ear portions of the headphone to by worn on a user’s head. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, 18-25 and 27 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2021/0335370 A1).
Re claim 8: The teaching of Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination of Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. does not teach that the processor used is an ARM processor. Feng et al. teaches in a similar environment of headsets that processing information can be achieved by various processors including the use of an ARM processor (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the processor as taught in Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. with another type such as an ARM processor taught by Feng et al. to predictably provide an alternative means of processing information. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, 18-25 and 27 above, and further in view of Schrader et al. (US 2017/0230744 A1).
Re claim 9: The teaching of Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al.. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally, Pelland et al. teaches in a similar environment the headphones include a headband to allow for each ear portion to be held adjacent a user’s ears by being worn of the user’s head (see element 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the headband as taught by Pelland et al. into the headphone arrangement of Recker et al. as applied to predictably provide a means for holding the ear portions of the headphone to by worn on a user’s head. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Additionally, Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. do not teach the use of a circuit board for mounting components of the headphone. Schrader et al. teaches in a similar environment that a circuit board (170) can be used to mount a variety of components needed for operation of a headphone (paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to include such a circuit board in the headphone that includes a headband as taught by Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. as applied to predictably provide a means for mounting those desired components on a circuit board allowing for the operation of the headphone. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 10: the mounting of a battery in a second earcup as set forth amounts to an obvious relocation of a part from one earpiece to another in which one of ordinary skill in the art could have made give the teachings of Recker et al., Pelland et al. and Schrader et al. as combined to provide an alternative arrangement of power source location with the same result of power source usage for operation of the headphone.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. as applied to 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, 18-25 and 27 above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (System on Chip Interfaces for Low Power Design), cite by applicant.
Re claim 17: The teaching of Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach the use of a SDIO port as set forth. Mishra teaches in a similar environment to use a SDIO port (see teachings under the sections entitled “WI-FI Interfaces” and “SDIO (secure digital input output)”) to obtain the benefit of at least its low-power characteristic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of a SDIO port as taught by Mishra et al. into the arrangement of Recker et al. in view of Pelland et al. as applied to predictably obtain the advantage of low-power characteristics. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 15-25 and 27-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488.
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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 2/10/26