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 .
This office action is in response to remarks filed on 05/19/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 13-16, 20, 23, 26-28, 30-33, and 35 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 26, and 31-32 are amended. Claims 5, 7, 9-12, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, 29, 34, and 36-39 are canceled.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 26, and 31-32 have been considered based on amendments.
Claims 5, 7, 9-12, 17-19, 29, 34, and 36-39 have been cancelled.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 26-27, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner et al (US20160037310A1) (hereinafter "Lindner ") in view of Jorgovanovic et al (US11153678B1) (hereinafter "Jorgovanovic").
Regarding claim 1, Lindner discloses a method of communicating, comprising:
receiving, at a first headset, a voice input from a user, wherein the voice input comprises a spoken operational input requesting voice communication and a spoken name associated with a contact in a workgroup ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example. [0101] The voice command may be any command used in a group communication session, such a command to commence a communication session with a particular communication group, to terminate the session, to add or drop group members from a communication session, to send or download media files, and so forth.);
performing, by a processor of the first headset, speech recognition on the voice input to identify the spoken operational input and to identify the spoken name ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example.);
generating, through the voice communication channel, a voice communication session between the first headset and the second headset, wherein the voice communication session allows voice communication between the first headset and the at least one second headset in a full-duplex communication mode ([0077] In block 612 of method 601, the first mobile device 201 may establish a full-duplex communication channel with at least one other (i.e., second) mobile device. The first mobile device 201 may communicate with the at least one second mobile device over the full-duplex communication channel in block 614.).
Lindner fails to disclose a method, comprising: generating, via the first headset, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses a method, comprising: generating, via the first headset, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup (Col. 3, Ln. 30-35: In some instances, configuring the wireless headphones as walkie-talkies may involve establishing a two-way voice communication channel between the first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone over the two-way voice communication channel, the wireless headphones may exchange audio data corresponding to user speech. Col. 7, Ln. 26-33: The first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may also utilize the wireless headphones 106 to perform additional commands using one or more predefined keywords or wake words. For instance, the first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may request that the wireless headphones 106 stream music, control a secondary device (e.g., turn on a TV, etc.), perform a phone call using the mobile device 108, respond to various commands, and so forth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create a method, comprising: generating, via the first headset, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 13, Lindner discloses a system, comprising:
a first headset comprising a processor and a wireless communication interface; and ([0132] In some mobile receiver devices, multiple processors 2001 may be provided, such as one processor dedicated to wireless communication functions and one processor dedicated to running other applications.)
at least one second headset ([0058] In embodiment method 300, a first mobile device, such as mobile device 102 in FIG. 1, may establish a communication session with one or more second mobile device);
wherein the processor of the first headset is configured to:
receive a voice input from a user, wherein the voice input comprises a spoken operational input requesting voice communication and a spoken name associated with a contact in a workgroup ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example. [0101] The voice command may be any command used in a group communication session, such a command to commence a communication session with a particular communication group, to terminate the session, to add or drop group members from a communication session, to send or download media files, and so forth.);
perform speech recognition on the voice input to identify the spoken operational input and to identify the spoken name ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example.);
generate, through the voice communication channel, a voice communication session between the first headset and the at least one second headset, wherein the voice communication session allows voice communication between the first headset and the at least one second headset in a full-duplex communication mode ([0077] In block 612 of method 601, the first mobile device 201 may establish a full-duplex communication channel with at least one other (i.e., second) mobile device. The first mobile device 201 may communicate with the at least one second mobile device over the full-duplex communication channel in block 614.).
Lindner fails to disclose a system, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses a system, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup (Col. 3, Ln. 30-35: In some instances, configuring the wireless headphones as walkie-talkies may involve establishing a two-way voice communication channel between the first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone over the two-way voice communication channel, the wireless headphones may exchange audio data corresponding to user speech. Col. 7, Ln. 26-33: The first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may also utilize the wireless headphones 106 to perform additional commands using one or more predefined keywords or wake words. For instance, the first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may request that the wireless headphones 106 stream music, control a secondary device (e.g., turn on a TV, etc.), perform a phone call using the mobile device 108, respond to various commands, and so forth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create a system, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the first headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 26, Lindner discloses headset comprising:
at least one earpiece comprising one or more integrated speakers ([0130] A typical mobile device 1700 may include a processor 1701 coupled to internal memory 1702, to a display 1703, and to a speaker 1708.);
at least one microphone coupled to the headset ([0049] The processor may also be operably coupled to external devices such as an antenna, microphone, speaker, display, keypad or other user input device, such as a touchscreen device, as is known in the art.);
a processor ([0130] A typical mobile device 1700 may include a processor 1701 coupled to internal memory 1702, to a display 1703, and to a speaker 1708.);
a user interface communicably coupled to the processor, the user interface configured to receive a voice input from a user, wherein the voice input comprises a spoken operational input requesting voice communication and a spoken name associated with a contact in a workgroup; and ([0102] When the user is finished speaking, the user may relinquish the floor using any suitable means, such as by pressing a button or key on a user interface, or by touching a touchscreen interface. In embodiments, the floor may be relinquished using a voice command (e.g., a particular keyword or keyword string, not likely to be used in regular conversation). [0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example. [0101] The voice command may be any command used in a group communication session, such a command to commence a communication session with a particular communication group, to terminate the session, to add or drop group members from a communication session, to send or download media files, and so forth.)
a wireless communication interface communicably coupled to the processor, wherein the wireless communication interface is configured to communicably couple the processor with the at least one other headset ([0130] Additionally, the receiver device 1700 may include an antenna 1704 for sending and receiving electromagnetic radiation that may be connected to a wireless data link and/or cellular telephone transceiver 1705 coupled to the processor 1701.);
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, via the user interface, the voice input from the user ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example. [0101] The voice command may be any command used in a group communication session, such a command to commence a communication session with a particular communication group, to terminate the session, to add or drop group members from a communication session, to send or download media files, and so forth.);
perform speech recognition on the voice input to identify the spoken operational input and to identify the spoken name ([0099] The first mobile device 102 may determine whether a detected audio signal is a recognized voice command to a group communication server in block 1106. In some embodiments, this may include analyzing the detected audio signal (e.g., using voice recognition software) to determine if it corresponds to a command to the group communication server. In embodiments, the first mobile device 102 may analyze the detected audio signal for particular keyword(s) associated with a command, for example.);
generate, through the voice communication channel, a voice communication session between the headset and the second headset, wherein the voice communication session allows voice communication between the headset and the second headset in a full-duplex communication mode ([0077] In block 612 of method 601, the first mobile device 201 may establish a full-duplex communication channel with at least one other (i.e., second) mobile device. The first mobile device 201 may communicate with the at least one second mobile device over the full-duplex communication channel in block 614.).
Lindner fails to disclose a headset, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses a headset, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup (Col. 3, Ln. 30-35: In some instances, configuring the wireless headphones as walkie-talkies may involve establishing a two-way voice communication channel between the first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone over the two-way voice communication channel, the wireless headphones may exchange audio data corresponding to user speech. Col. 7, Ln. 26-33: The first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may also utilize the wireless headphones 106 to perform additional commands using one or more predefined keywords or wake words. For instance, the first user 100 and/or the second user 102 may request that the wireless headphones 106 stream music, control a secondary device (e.g., turn on a TV, etc.), perform a phone call using the mobile device 108, respond to various commands, and so forth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create a headset, configured to: generate, via the wireless communication interface, a voice communication channel between the headset and a second headset assigned to the identified contact in the workgroup.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 2, Lindner fails to disclose the method, wherein the voice communication channel is a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the method, wherein the voice communication channel is a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the method, wherein the voice communication channel is a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 3, Lindner fails to disclose the method, wherein the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset is generated through a wireless local area network.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the method, wherein the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset is generated through a wireless local area network (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the method, wherein the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset is generated through a wireless local area network.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 14, Lindner fails to disclose the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the first headset and the second headset.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 15, Lindner fails to disclose the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the system, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 27, Lindner fails to disclose the headset, wherein the at least one earpiece is configured to be at least partly received in an ear of the user.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the headset, wherein the at least one earpiece is configured to be at least partly received in an ear of the user (Col. 4, Ln. 57-61: The first user 100 is shown wearing a first wireless headphone 106(1), which may reside within the right ear of the first user 100, and the second user 102 is shown wearing a second wireless headphone 106(2), which may reside within the left ear of the second user 102.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the headset, wherein the at least one earpiece is configured to be at least partly received in an ear of the user.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 30, Lindner fails to disclose the headset, wherein the user interface comprises the at least one microphone.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the headset, wherein the user interface comprises the at least one microphone (Col. 10, Ln. 1-4: The first wireless headphone 106(1) may include one or more microphone(s) 216 to capture user speech and generate audio data associated with user utterances and/or commands.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the headset, wherein the user interface comprises the at least one microphone.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 31, Lindner fails to disclose the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the headset and the second headset.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the headset and the second headset (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel as a direct wireless communication channel between the headset and the second headset.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 32, Lindner fails to disclose the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network (Col. 2, Ln. 26-34: The first wireless headphone and the second wireless headphone may directly or indirectly communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near-field magnetic induction (NFMI), ZigBee, Z-wave, Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) protocol, Wi-Fi, adaptive frequency technology (AFT), or the like. The first wireless headphone and the mobile device may communicatively couple via one or more communication channels, such as Bluetooth.).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the headset and the second headset through a wireless local area network.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Regarding claim 33, Lindner fails to disclose the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a first alert upon generation of the voice communication session between the headset and the at least one other headset.
However, Jorgovanovic discloses the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a first alert upon generation of the voice communication session between the headset and the at least one other headset (Col. 14, Ln. 66-67 and Col. 15, Ln. 1-5: In some instances, the first wireless headphone 106(1) may transmit the request (i.e., the signal S318) via the second communication channel 112. The second wireless headphone 106(2) may transmit an acknowledgement, such as signal S320, to the first wireless headphone 106(1) upon establishing the third communication channel 114).
Lindner and Jorgovanovic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of configuring wireless speakers, wireless earbuds, and/or other forms of wireless headphones (e.g., in-ear, over-ear, on-ear, etc.) as walkie-talkies or devices capable of performing short-range, direct, two-way voice communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner with Jorgovanovic to create the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a first alert upon generation of the voice communication session between the headset and the at least one other headset.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve user experience by optimizing communication session establishment procedures.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner in view of Jorgovanovic, as applied to claims 1, 13, or 26 above, and further in view of Brown et al (US20030100274A1) (hereinafter "Brown").
Regarding claim 4, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the method, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the voice communication channel is generated between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup.
However, Brown discloses the method, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the voice communication channel is generated between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup ([0045] Preferably the headset 212 is configured to be capable of establishing communication with a plurality of headsets, to allow for a group communication between three or more users of headsets. Furthermore, it is envisaged that where group communication is supported a user is able to broadcast to all wireless headsets within range of its wireless headset.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Brown are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of two-way wireless headsets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Brown to create the method, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the voice communication channel is generated between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow simultaneous communication between multiple entities.
Regarding claim 16, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the system, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup.
However, Brown discloses the system, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup ([0045] Preferably the headset 212 is configured to be capable of establishing communication with a plurality of headsets, to allow for a group communication between three or more users of headsets. Furthermore, it is envisaged that where group communication is supported a user is able to broadcast to all wireless headsets within range of its wireless headset.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Brown are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of two-way wireless headsets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Brown to create the system, wherein the at least one second headset comprises a plurality of second headsets, wherein the first headset and the plurality of second headsets form a workgroup, and wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the plurality of second headsets in the workgroup.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow simultaneous communication between multiple entities.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner in view of Jorgovanovic, as applied to claims 1, 13, or 26 above, and further in view of Barnes et al (US20120096490A1) (hereinafter "Barnes").
Regarding claim 6, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the method, further comprising generating a first alert including at least one of an audible alert and a haptic alert indicating that the voice communication session has been initiated.
However, Barnes discloses the method, further comprising generating a first alert including at least one of an audible alert and a haptic alert indicating that the voice communication session has been initiated ([0419] One example embodiment of a device 101 includes hardware and computer programming (computer code segments) for performing the following steps: [0439] receiving a mobile telephone communication while presenting an audio presentation to the user an notifying the user of the received telephone communication through a vibratory alert and/or an audible alert;).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Barnes are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of notifying a user of an event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Barnes to create the method, further comprising generating a first alert including at least one of an audible alert and a haptic alert indicating that the voice communication session has been initiated.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to notify a user of an event through visual, auditory, or tactile means in case a certain method is not available.
Claims 8, 20, 23, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner in view of Jorgovanovic, as applied to claims 1, 13, or 26 above, and further in view of Subbaramoo et al (US20130316687A1) (hereinafter "Subbaramoo").
Regarding claim 8, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the method, further comprising: determining a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminating the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
However, Subbaramoo discloses the method, further comprising:
determining a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and ([0102] When the device 102 detects silence (i.e., determination block 1120="Yes"), the detected silence may trigger the start of a timeout period. The timeout period may have a duration that is sufficient to infer that the user has finished speaking and would like to relinquish control of the floor (e.g., generally around 1 second or more))
terminating the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold ([0102] When the timeout period expires (i.e., determination block 1122="Yes"), the device 102 may close the communication channel in block 1124 and send a message to the group communication server relinquishing control of the floor in block 1126.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing a communication link between two devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo to create the method, further comprising: determining a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminating the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to terminate a link when it is no longer needed to save system resources.
Regarding claim 20, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the system, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
However, Subbaramoo discloses the system, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and ([0102] When the device 102 detects silence (i.e., determination block 1120="Yes"), the detected silence may trigger the start of a timeout period. The timeout period may have a duration that is sufficient to infer that the user has finished speaking and would like to relinquish control of the floor (e.g., generally around 1 second or more))
terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold ([0102] When the timeout period expires (i.e., determination block 1122="Yes"), the device 102 may close the communication channel in block 1124 and send a message to the group communication server relinquishing control of the floor in block 1126.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing a communication link between two devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo to create the system, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to terminate a link when it is no longer needed to save system resources.
Regarding claim 23, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, discloses the system, further comprising a communication controller communicably coupled to the first headset and the at least one second headset, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the voice communication channel between the first headset and the at least one second headset through the communication controller (Col. 9, Ln. 33-40: the interface(s) 208 of the first wireless headphone 106(1) may include a Bluetooth interface 210, a BLE interface 212, and/or a Bluetooth HFP protocol interface 214. However, in some instances, the first wireless headphone 106(1) may include additional interface(s) 208, such as an NFMI interface that allows the first wireless headphone 106(1) to transmit audio data with the second wireless headphone 106(2).).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the system, wherein the communication controller is configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold
However, Subbaramoo discloses the system, wherein the communication controller is configured to:
determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and ([0102] When the device 102 detects silence (i.e., determination block 1120="Yes"), the detected silence may trigger the start of a timeout period. The timeout period may have a duration that is sufficient to infer that the user has finished speaking and would like to relinquish control of the floor (e.g., generally around 1 second or more))
terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold ([0102] When the timeout period expires (i.e., determination block 1122="Yes"), the device 102 may close the communication channel in block 1124 and send a message to the group communication server relinquishing control of the floor in block 1126.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing a communication link between two devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Jorgovanovic and Subbaramoo to create the system, wherein the communication controller is configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to terminate a link when it is no longer needed to save system resources.
Regarding claim 35, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
However, Subbaramoo discloses the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and ([0102] When the device 102 detects silence (i.e., determination block 1120="Yes"), the detected silence may trigger the start of a timeout period. The timeout period may have a duration that is sufficient to infer that the user has finished speaking and would like to relinquish control of the floor (e.g., generally around 1 second or more))
terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold ([0102] When the timeout period expires (i.e., determination block 1122="Yes"), the device 102 may close the communication channel in block 1124 and send a message to the group communication server relinquishing control of the floor in block 1126.).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing a communication link between two devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Subbaramoo to create the headset, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration elapsed since a termination of a last voice communication in the voice communication session; and terminate the voice communication session in response to the time duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to terminate a link when it is no longer needed to save system resources.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner in view of Jorgovanovic, as applied to claims 1, 13, or 26 above, and further in view of Broadley et al (US20160302029A1) (hereinafter "Broadley").
Regarding claim 28, Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, fails to disclose the headset, further comprising at least one headband, wherein the at least one earpiece comprises a first earpiece and a second earpiece, and wherein the first earpiece and the second earpiece are interconnected through the at least one headband.
However, Broadley discloses the headset, further comprising at least one headband, wherein the at least one earpiece comprises a first earpiece and a second earpiece, and wherein the first earpiece and the second earpiece are interconnected through the at least one headband ([0022] As used and defined herein, the term “headset” refers to a communications headset that consists of two ear pieces that cover the ears of the user, and a headband that couples to the earpieces to provide support for the earpieces).
Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Broadley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of wireless communication headsets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Lindner, as modified by Jorgovanovic, and Broadley to create the headset, further comprising at least one headband, wherein the at least one earpiece comprises a first earpiece and a second earpiece, and wherein the first earpiece and the second earpiece are interconnected through the at least one headband.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to have a means of supporting and coupling the left and right earpieces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 26, and associated dependent claims have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 D. Little whose telephone number is (571)272-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 ET.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/D LITTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights