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
1. The amendment filed September 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham").
Regarding Claim 1, Kadri teaches an audio system (audio system 100, Fig. 1, Para. [0034]) comprising:
at least two low frequency transducers to project sound within a room (low frequency speakers 212, Fig. 2, Para. [0040]);
a portable device (portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]; see also Figs. 5 and 6, Paras. [0066] and [0075]) comprising:
a microphone array comprising at least two microphones (portable device 300 can include one or more microphones (NMDs 612, 614, 616) which may include microphones arranged in a microphone array, Para. [0075]; see also Fig. 7, Paras. [0088]-[0090]) to receive sound generated by each of the at least two low frequency transducers at a first listening location from multiple directions (NMD 700 receives sound generated by the low frequency transducers from multiple directions, Para. [0090]), and
a microcontroller (processor 302 [microcontroller] of portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]) programmed to provide a calibration command in response to a user input (microcontroller 302 provides calibration command in response to trigger condition of user input, Paras. [0098] and [0099]) and to provide a measurement signal indicative of the sound received by the microphone array (microphones (NMDs 612, 614, 616) of portable device 300 provides measurement signal indicative of sound received by the microphone array, Paras. [0123] and [0124]); and
a processor separated from the portable device (processor 202 of playback device 200, Fig. 2, Paras. [0036] and [0037]) and programmed to:
provide a test signal in response to receiving the calibration command (processor 302 of playback device provides a test signal in response to calibration command received from the portable device, Paras. [0097]-[0099] and [0114]), wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to generate a test sound in response to the test signal (the low frequency transducer [playback device] generate test sound in response to test signal receive, Para. [0124]).
Kadri fails to explicitly teach process the measurement signal to predict a sound response at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening location, and
adjust a sound setting associated with each of the at least two low frequency transducers to optimize sound at the first listening location and at the second listening location.
However, Fincham teaches process the measurement signal to predict a sound response at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening location (sound measurements at a given listening position are summed vectorially and characterized in the form of a composite transfer function which is now used to predict sound across different listening positions, Figs. 1-3, Paras. [0044]-[0048]; therefore sound response is predicted at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening position), and
adjust a sound setting associated with each of the at least two low frequency transducers to optimize sound at the first listening location and at the second listening location (sound settings for each speaker 105A-105D are adjusted to optimize sound at each listening positions, Paras. [0046], [0047], [0053], and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri) to include the prediction of sound response at a second listening location and adjusting sound settings of the low frequency transducers to optimize sound at listening positions (as taught by Fincham). Doing so will minimize variance in frequency response or audio level at different listening positions whilst optionally also obtaining maximum output capability (Fincham Para. [0015]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kadri in view of Fincham teaches wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to generate test sound below 120 Hertz in response to the test signal (Kadri, low frequency transducers 212 generate sound below 120 Hz in response to test signal, Para. [0094]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kadri in view of Fincham teaches wherein the test signal is indicative of a predetermined sound sweep (Kadri, test signal is a predetermined sound sweep, Para. [0120]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kadri in view of Fincham teaches wherein the processor is further programmed to provide an audio signal indicative of a music signal (Kadri, audio signal indicative of a music signal is provided, Para. [0120]) and the adjusted sound settings to each of the at least two low frequency transducers (Fincham, sound settings for each speaker 105A-105D are adjusted, Paras. [0046], [0047], [0053], and [0054]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kadri in view of Fincham teaches wherein the portable device further comprises an externally accessible button (Kadri, microcontroller 302 of portable device comprises an externally accessible button, Fig. 8, Para. [0100]), and wherein the microcontroller of the portable device is further programmed to provide the calibration command in response to a user pressing the externally accessible button (Kadri, microcontroller 302 provides calibration command in response to trigger condition of user input, Paras. [0098] and [0099]).
Regarding Claim 11, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, it is similarly rejected as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14, it is similarly rejected as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, Kadri teaches an audio system (audio system 100, Fig. 1, Para. [0034]) comprising:
at least two low frequency transducers, wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to project sound within a room in response to receiving an audio signal (low frequency speakers 212, Fig. 2, Para. [0040]);
a portable device (portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]; see also Figs. 5 and 6, Paras. [0066] and [0075]) comprising:
at least three microphones (portable device 300 can include one or more microphones (NMDs 612, 614, 616) which may include microphones arranged in a microphone array, Para. [0075]; see also Fig. 7, Paras. [0088]-[0090]) adapted to receive sound at a first listening location (the one or more microphones (NMDs 612, 614, 616) receives sound at a first listening location, Para. [0090]), and
a microcontroller (processor 302 [microcontroller] of portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]) configured to provide a calibration command in response to a user input (microcontroller 302 provides calibration command in response to trigger condition of user input, Paras. [0098] and [0099]), and to provide a measurement signal indicative of the sound received by the at least three microphones (microphones (NMDs 612, 614, 616) of portable device 300 provides measurement signal indicative of sound received by the microphone array, Paras. [0123] and [0124]); and
a controller (controller 202 of playback device 200, Fig. 2, Paras. [0036] and [0037]) configured to:
provide a first audio signal indicative of a predetermined sound sweep to each of the at least two low frequency transducers in response to receiving the calibration command (processor 302 of playback device provides a test signal [predetermined sound sweep] to the low frequency transducers 212 in response to calibration command received from the portable device, Paras. [0097]-[0099], [0114], and [0120]),
receive a music signal (playback back device is able to receive a music signal, Para. [0120]), and
provide a second audio signal indicative of the music signal (controller 202 of playback device 200 will provide the received music audio signal as a second audio signal to the speakers 212, Para. [0120]) and the adjusted sound settings to each of the at least two low frequency transducers (adjusted sound settings to each low frequency transducers is provided, Para. [0155]).
Kadri fails to explicitly teach process the measurement signal to predict a sound response at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening location,
adjust a sound setting associated with each of the at least two low frequency transducers to optimize sound at the first listening location and at the second listening location.
However, Fincham teaches process the measurement signal to predict a sound response at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening location (sound measurements at a given listening position are summed vectorially and characterized in the form of a composite transfer function which is now used to predict sound across different listening positions, Figs. 1-3, Paras. [0044]-[0048]; therefore sound response is predicted at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening position),
adjust a sound setting associated with each of the at least two low frequency transducers to optimize sound at the first listening location and at the second listening location (sound settings for each speaker 105A-105D are adjusted to optimize sound at each listening positions, Paras. [0046], [0047], [0053], and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri) to include the prediction of sound response at a second listening location and adjusting sound settings of the low frequency transducers to optimize sound at listening positions (as taught by Fincham). Doing so will minimize variance in frequency response or audio level at different listening positions whilst optionally also obtaining maximum output capability (Fincham Para. [0015]).
4. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham") in view of Sekiya (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0125011 A1), and further in view of Fomin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,452,019 B1, hereinafter "Fomin").
Regarding Claim 3, Kadri in view of Fincham fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least two microphones further comprise:
a first microphone disposed on an axis and arranged in a first direction to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound; and
a second microphone disposed on the axis and arranged in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound.
However, Sekiya teaches a first microphone disposed on an axis and arranged in a first direction to receive incoming sound (first microphone MF disposed on an axis and arranged in front direction to receive incoming sound, Fig. 3, Paras. [0108]-[0112]); and
a second microphone disposed on the axis and arranged in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to receive incoming sound (second microphone MR disposed on the axis and arranged in rear direction opposite the front direction to receive incoming sound, Fig. 3, Paras. [0108]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham) to include the opposite direction microphones on the same axis (as taught by Sekiya). Doing so will enable isolation of sound sources and rejection of unwanted noise.
However, Fomin teaches microphones on an axis to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound (microphones M1, M2 receive sound from desired speaker (SPKR) while attenuating off-axis incoming sound from interferer (INT), Figs. 1A and 1B, Col. 1, Ln. 62 thru Col. 2, Ln. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham, and further in view of Sekiya) to include attenuation of microphone off-axis incoming sound (as taught by Fomin). Doing so will create a fixed sensitivity pattern allowing for focus on desired sounds while rejecting unwanted noise (Fomin, Col. 2, Lns. 8-24).
Regarding Claim 15, it is similarly rejected as Claim 3.
5. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham") in view of Sekiya (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0125011 A1) in view of Fomin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,452,019 B1, hereinafter "Fomin"), and further in view of Rudberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0222804 A1, hereinafter "Rudberg").
Regarding Claim 4, Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further programmed to process the measurement signal to predict the sound response at the second listening location adjacent to the first listening location by shifting a time delay associated with the sound received at each of the first microphone and the second microphone based on a distance between the first listening location and the second listening location.
However, Rudberg teaches shifting a time delay associated with the sound received at microphones based on a distance between the first listening location and the second listening location (shifting time delay associated with sound received microphones 110E at first listening location and microphone 110A at a second listening location based on the distance between the first and second listening location, Fig. 5, Para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin) to include shifting time delay based on distance between listening locations (as taught by Rudberg). Doing so, it will be possible to simulate the effects of distance, obstacles and reflections providing a more realistic and immersive audio experience.
Regarding Claim 16, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4.
6. Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham") in view of Sekiya (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0125011 A1) in view of Fomin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,452,019 B1, hereinafter "Fomin"), and further in view of Silzle et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,215,542 B2, hereinafter "Silzle").
Regarding Claim 5, Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin fail to explicitly teach wherein the microphone array further comprises a third microphone disposed on the axis between the first microphone and the second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions.
However, Silzle teaches wherein the microphone array further comprises a third microphone disposed on the axis between the first microphone and the second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions (omnidirectional third microphone R7 disposed on the axis between first microphone R1 and second microphone R2, Fig. 3, Col. 9, Lns. 7-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin) to include the third microphone between the first and second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions (as taught by Silzle). Doing so creates a microphone array that captures a more accurate and complete picture of soundfield at the listening location.
Regarding Claim 6, Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya in view of Fomin and further in view of Silzle teaches wherein the microcontroller of the portable device is further programmed to:
determine a combined sound directivity based on a difference between the sound received by the first and second microphones and the sound received by the third microphone (Silzle, combined sound directivity based on a difference between the sound received by the first, second and third microphone is determined using the directivity combining method, Fig. 6, Paras. [0116] and [0117]); and
provide the measurement signal based on the combined sound directivity (Silzle, measurement signal Pall based on the combined sound directivity, Fig. 6, Para. [0117]).
Regarding Claim 17, it is similarly rejected as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, it is similarly rejected as Claim 6.
7. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham"), and further in view of Reining et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0009115 A1, hereinafter "Reining").
Regarding Claim 7, Kadri in view of Fincham fail teaches extrapolating measured audio signal from a first listening position to a second listening position (Fincham, sound measurements at a given listening position are summed vectorially and characterized in the form of a composite transfer function which is now used to predict sound across different listening positions, Figs. 1-3, Paras. [0044]-[0048]).
Kadri in view of Fincham fail to explicitly teach the wherein the processor is further programmed to:
separate the measurement signal into orthogonal components; and
extrapolate the orthogonal components to the second listening location.
However, Reining teaches separate the measurement signal into orthogonal components (microphone signals are split into components orthogonal to each other, Para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham) to include separating the measurement signal into orthogonal components and extrapolating the orthogonal components to the second listening location (as taught by Reining). Doing so signals may be deliberately combined to form signal with the desired directivity pattern (Reining Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, it is similarly rejected as Claim 7.
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0041853 A1, hereinafter "Kadri") in view of Fincham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0314256 A1, hereinafter "Fincham") in view of Sekiya (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0125011 A1) in view of Fomin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,452,019 B1, hereinafter "Fomin"), and further in view of Silzle et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,215,542 B2, hereinafter "Silzle").
Regarding Claim 20, Kadri in view of Fincham fails to explicitly wherein the at least three microphones comprise:
a first microphone disposed on an axis and arranged in a first direction to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound, and
a second microphone disposed on the axis and arranged in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound.
a third microphone disposed on the axis between the first microphone and the second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions.
wherein the microcontroller of the portable device is further configured to:
determine a combined sound directivity based on a difference between the sound received by the first and second microphones and the sound received by the third microphone; and
provide the measurement signal based on the combined sound directivity.
However, Sekiya teaches a first microphone disposed on an axis and arranged in a first direction to receive incoming sound (first microphone MF disposed on an axis and arranged in front direction to receive incoming sound, Fig. 3, Paras. [0108]-[0112]); and
a second microphone disposed on the axis and arranged in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to receive incoming sound (second microphone MR disposed on the axis and arranged in rear direction opposite the front direction to receive incoming sound, Fig. 3, Paras. [0108]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham) to include the opposite direction microphones on the same axis (as taught by Sekiya). Doing so will enable isolation of sound sources and rejection of unwanted noise.
However, Fomin teaches microphones on an axis to receive incoming sound and attenuate off-axis incoming sound (microphones M1, M2 receive sound from desired speaker (SPKR) while attenuating off-axis incoming sound from interferer (INT), Figs. 1A and 1B, Col. 1, Ln. 62 thru Col. 2, Ln. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham, and further in view of Sekiya) to include attenuation of microphone off-axis incoming sound (as taught by Fomin). Doing so will create a fixed sensitivity pattern allowing for focus on desired sounds while rejecting unwanted noise (Fomin, Col. 2, Lns. 8-24).
However, Silzle teaches wherein the microphone array further comprises a third microphone disposed on the axis between the first microphone and the second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions (omnidirectional third microphone R7 disposed on the axis between first microphone R1 and second microphone R2, Fig. 3, Col. 9, Lns. 7-67),
wherein the microcontroller of the portable device is further configured to:
determine a combined sound directivity based on a difference between the sound received by the first and second microphones and the sound received by the third microphone (combined sound directivity based on a difference between the sound received by the first, second and third microphone is determined using the directivity combining method, Fig. 6, Paras. [0116] and [0117]); and
provide the measurement signal based on the combined sound directivity (measurement signal Pall based on the combined sound directivity, Fig. 6, Para. [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio system (as taught by Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin) to include the third microphone between the first and second microphone to receive sound from multiple directions, combining sound directivity and providing the measured signal based on the combined sound directivity (as taught by Silzle). Doing so creates a microphone array that captures a more accurate and complete picture of soundfield at the listening location.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remark pages 8-12, filed September 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri (US 2018/0041853) and Brannmark (US 2014/0153744) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment to Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham.
Kadri teaches an audio system (Fig. 1, Para. [0034]) comprising: at least two low frequency transducers to project sound within a room (Fig. 2, Para. [0040]); a portable device (Fig. 3, Para. [0052]; see also Figs. 5 and 6, Paras. [0066] and [0075]) comprising: a microphone array comprising at least two microphones (Para. [0075]; see also Fig. 7, Paras. [0088]-[0090]) to receive sound generated by each of the at least two low frequency transducers at a first listening location from multiple directions (Para. [0090]), and a microcontroller (Fig. 3, Para. [0052]) programmed to provide a calibration command in response to a user input (Paras. [0098] and [0099]) and to provide a measurement signal indicative of the sound received by the microphone array (Paras. [0123] and [0124]); and a processor separated from the portable device (Fig. 2, Paras. [0036] and [0037]) and programmed to: provide a test signal in response to receiving the calibration command (Paras. [0097]-[0099] and [0114]), wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to generate a test sound in response to the test signal (Para. [0124]).
Fincham teaches process the measurement signal to predict a sound response at a second listening location adjacent to the first listening location (Figs. 1-3, Paras. [0044]-[0048], and adjust a sound setting associated with each of the at least two low frequency transducers to optimize sound at the first listening location and at the second listening location (Paras. [0046], [0047], [0053], and [0054]).
Applicant argues, (see applicants remark, pages 8 and 9) Applicant notes that the Examiner relied on the processor 702 disclosed by Kadri to satisfy to the "microcontroller [of the portable device]" and the "processor" recited in claim I (Office Action at 3.) Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection and submits that the microcontroller and the processor are separate devices, and thus cannot be satisfied by a single processor 702 disclosed by Kadri. Notwithstanding, Applicant amends claim 1 to recite "a processor separated from the portable device" to further prosecution.
Further, claim 1 recites: a portable device comprising: a microcontroller programmed to provide a calibration command in response to a user input and to provide a measurement signal indicative of the sound received by the microphone array; and a processor separated from the portable device and programmed to: provide a test signal in response to receiving the calibration command, wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to generate a test sound in response to the test signal. The Examiner relied on Kadri paragraphs [0089], [0098]-[0100], [0114], [0120] and etc. as allegedly satisfying the above feature. (Office Action at 3.) Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument above, Kadri teaches the microcontroller (processor 302 [microcontroller] of portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]), and a processor separated from the portable device (processor 202 of playback device 200, Fig. 2, Paras. [0036] and [0037]).
Kadri also teaches a portable device (Fig. 3, Para. [0052]; see also Figs. 5 and 6, Paras. [0066] and [0075]) comprising: a microcontroller (Fig. 3, Para. [0052]) programmed to provide a calibration command in response to a user input (Paras. [0098] and [0099]) and to provide a measurement signal indicative of the sound received by the microphone array (Paras. [0123] and [0124]); and a processor separated from the portable device (Fig. 2, Paras. [0036] and [0037]) and programmed to: provide a test signal in response to receiving the calibration command (Paras. [0097]-[0099] and [0114]), wherein each of the at least two low frequency transducers is adapted to generate a test sound in response to the test signal (Para. [0124]).
Applicant argues, (see applicants remark, pages 9-12) Kadri discloses "the network microphone device 700 includes a processor 702." (Kadri paragraph [0088].) "The processor 702 may include one or more processors and/or controllers, which may take the form of a general or special-purpose processor or controller." (Kadri paragraph [0089].) Therefore, the processor 702 is a component of the network microphone device 700. Kadri further discloses a calibration sequence: [0102] To illustrate movement of the control device during calibration, FIG. 9 shows media playback system 100 of FIG. 1. FIG. 9 shows a path 900 along which a recording device (e.g., control device 126) might be moved during calibration. As noted above, the recording device may indicate how to perform such a movement in various ways, such as by way of a video or animation, among other examples. A recording device might detect iterations of a calibration sound emitted by one or more playback devices of media playback system 100 at different points along the path 900, which may facilitate a space averaged calibration of those playback devices.
Kadri further discloses: [0105] In some cases, the first recording device (or another device) may instruct the one or more playback devices to emit the calibration sound. For instance, a recording device, such as control device 126 of media playback system 100, may send a command that causes
a playback device (e.g., one of playback devices 102-124) to emit a calibration sound. The control device may send the command via a network interface (e.g., a wired or wireless network interface). A playback device may receive such a command, perhaps via a network interface, and responsively emit the calibration sound.
Thus, in Kadri, the calibration is performed via the control device 126. E.g., the control
device 126 follows a path 900 within the room and sends commands to cause a playback device to
emit a calibration sound. However, the calibration process is not conducted by the processor 702 of
the network microphone device 700.
At least for the similar reasons, independent claims 11 and 19 are also in condition for allowance.
The dependent claims are also in condition for allowance at least by virtue of the dependency from one of the allowable independent claims and also because of the separately patentable features recited therein.
In response to applicant’s argument above, Kadri teaches a microcontroller (processor 302 [microcontroller] of portable device 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0052]) programmed to provide a calibration command in response to a user input (microcontroller 302 provides calibration command in response to trigger condition of user input, Paras. [0098] and [0099]).
Upon further consideration, independent Claims 1, 11, and 19 has been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham.
The rejections of Independent Claims 1, 11, and 19 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham are maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 8-10, 13, and 14 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham. The rejections of dependent Claims 2, 8-10, 13, and 14 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham are maintained.
Dependent Claims 3 and 15 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin. The rejections of dependent Claims 3 and 15 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya, and further in view of Fomin are maintained.
Dependent Claims 4 and 16 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya in view of Fomin, and further in view of Rudberg. The rejections of dependent Claims 4 and 16 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya in view of Fomin, and further in view of Rudberg are maintained.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, 17, 18, and 20 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya in view of Fomin, and further in view of Silzle. The rejections of dependent Claims 5, 6, 17, 18, and 20 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham in view of Sekiya in view of Fomin, and further in view of Silzle are maintained.
Dependent Claims 7 and 12 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham, and further in view of Reining. The rejections of dependent Claims 7 and 12 based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri in view of Fincham, and further in view of Reining are maintained.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691