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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 depends upon a cancelled claim (claim 8) and therefor does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 10 and 12-14 depend on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Franco (US2024/0015459 A1).
Re claim 1: Franco teaches a method comprising:
configuring a first set of acoustic properties (by use of filters (222(1) and 222(2)), figure 4 to be applied to an audio device in response to detecting an identifier (indication signal, paragraph [0055]) for a given location;
in response to detecting the identifier, automatically applying the first set of acoustic properties to the audio device for audio playback, paragraph [0086], “generates filters 222 for each of the hub speaker unit 202 and the speaker unit 204 to use when reproducing audio signals”, wherein detecting the identifier indicates the audio device is physically proximate to the given location (charging port or another fixed point), paragraph [0055] or connection to another speaker unit , such as a charging port, paragraph [0109]); and
in response to no longer detecting the identifier (i.e. detecting that a speaker has been moved from an initial position to another location in which a new identifier is detected), automatically applying a second set of acoustic properties to the audio device for audio playback (applying a new filter, such as (510), figure 5, the second set of acoustic properties being different from the first set of acoustic properties in at least one aspect (filtering, paragraphs [0086-0087] for steering of a soundwave when rendering or to provide a larger soundwave when the speaker is positioned at a remote location) wherein no longer detecting the identifier indicates the audio device is no longer physically proximate to the given location.
Re claim 21: this claim contains many same features as provided in claim 1, with these features satisfied by the teaching of Franco for similar reasons. Additionally, Franco teaches an electro-acoustic transducer (loudspeakers 210) and a processor (212) as set forth
Re claim 26: Franco teaches a portable home speaker system (such as home theater speaker arrangement , paragraph [0002]) comprising: an accessory device (charging port or static mount (paragraph [0109]), and a first audio device (loudspeaker (204(1)) configured with a first set of acoustic properties (determined by filter 222(1)) to be applied in response to detecting an identifier of the accessory device(indication of attachment/detachment to this charging port), where the first audio device includes a processor (such as 242), figure 2 programmed (instructions, paragraph [0141]) to, in response to detecting the identifier of the accessory device, automatically apply the first set of acoustic properties for audio playback, paragraph [0086], “generates filters 222 for each of the hub speaker unit 202 and the speaker unit 204 to use when reproducing audio signals”; and in response to no longer detecting the identifier of the accessory device, automatically apply a second set of acoustic properties for audio playback, the second set of acoustic properties being different from the first set of acoustic properties in at least one aspect (applying a new filter, such as (510), figure 5, the second set of acoustic properties being different from the first set of acoustic properties in at least one aspect (filtering, paragraphs [0086-0087] for steering of a soundwave when rendering or to provide a larger soundwave when the speaker is positioned at a remote location).
Re claim 2: see paragraph [0026] in which assigning of a location, i.e. position information is stored
Re claims 3 and 24: see discussion in paragraphs [0027-0028} in which a reference position of a speaker unit includes position locations such as living room satisfying at least as alternatively claimed indoor indicator.
Re claim 4: not the reference position as discussed in paragraph [0028] is used to determine other positions within the environment at which other positions acoustic properties (by the use of filters and/or larger soundwaves are used when loudspeakers are positioned at these location(s)
Re claim 5: see paragraph [0035] in which equalization of audio can be performed satisfying the alternatively claimed possible acoustic feature.
Re claim 6: note speaker unit (202) having software (stored instructions), paragraph [0141] can be a smart device, paragraph [0027]
Re claim 7: the claimed dock is satisfied by at least a charging port, paragraph [0109] in which a speaker unit is being connected, with the location of such a charging port indicating the location of an audio device when the audio device is connected thereto.
Re claim 9: note acoustic adjustment can be made to each of the speaker units as depicted in figure 4 depending upon the location to which they are moved including joining, i.e. reconnecting a speaker unit (such as 104 or 204) to speaker unit (102 or 202) in the group of devices
Re claim 10: note each speaker (202, 204) forms part of a speaker group, with position of each based on being moved from an initial position to another location (charging port) and with the audio output from each being adjusted through the use of filters according to its location for forming a specific a sound field from each (paragraph [0026]) along with figure 5 block (516) that initiates audio output of hub speaker unit
Re claim 12: the claimed removing of an audio device from a grouping of speakers 302 when connected to speakers at reference location 308 to a different location such as 306 (figure 3) both of which locations acoustic properties are applied
Re claim 15: Note paragraphs [0025, 0048 and 0057] teaching each type of claimed sensor used in determining speaker location
Re claim 16: note the identifier signal(s) in Franco are unique and are not written anywhere in the arrangement
Re claim 17: note the arrangement in Franco there are a plurality of speakers (figure 4), each obtaining specific filtering to provide a n acoustic setting corresponding to that speaker’s location.
Re claim 19: as seen from figure 4 it appears speaker (104(1) and 104(2) are similar and therefore could be interchangeably placed with one another and with each used with an identifier for detecting a change in position of the speaker from an initial position to a new position.
Re claim 22: the claimed dock is satisfied by the charging port, paragraph [0109]
Re claim 23: note each location of a speaker has a corresponding identifier for that location and at which location acoustic properties used by the use of filters for that location.
Re claim 25: the acoustic properties for a given location are determined by the use of the filter (222) for that location
Re claim 27: the claimed charging device is satisfied by the charging port, paragraph [0109]
Re claim 28: note that an acoustic property of a speaker is specific to a location of an accessory device (charging port) at that location and filter (222) used for that location
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US2024/0015459 A1) in view of Christian (US 2008/0056516 A1)
Re claim 18: The teaching of Franco is discussed above and incorporated herein. Although Franco teaches that the speaker arrangement can be used in home theaters, paragraph [0002], Franco does not teach that the audio devices used are of the same make or model as alternatively set forth. Christian teaches in a similar home theater arrangement that the speakers used except for the subwoofer are of the same model thereby providing matching timbrel characteristics on each channel (paragraph [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Christian into the arrangement of Franco to predictably provide a home theater speaker arrangement providing matching timbrel characteristics on each channel. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco in view of Wilberding et al., US 2020/02882800 (already on record).
Re claim 13: The teaching of Franco is discussed above and incorporated herein. Franco does not teach to remove an audio device from a group of devices. Wilberding et al. teaches in a similar environment to audio devices can be removed from a group of devices, paragraph [0132] and as seen from the discussion in paragraph [0132] audio output and control thereof are provided to those playback devices present in a given configuration thereby forming a different configuration for playback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching into the arrangement of Franco to predictably provide a way of forming a different configuration for playback. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 14: The teaching of Franco is discussed above and incorporated herein. Franco does not teach proving a stand-alone speaker. Wilberding teaches in a similar environment that by removing playback devices as discussed above obviously forms a different configuration as discussed and a given zone may include only a stand-alone speaker (single playback device) as taught in paragraph [0101]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Wilberding into the arrangement of Franco to predictably provide a way of forming a different configuration including a stand-alone configuration for playback. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference(s) 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 3/13/26