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
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
3. In claims 1, 8 and 20 “in response to determining that the acknowledgement packet has been received from the audio output device after determining that the number of audio packets stored in the buffer of the audio source is greater than the predetermined threshold” is unclear. Its not clear what follows what as it appears to be a run on sentence. Is there supposed to be an “and” in between “device” and “after”? Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-19 are rejected since they depend upon claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang Wang et al (cited by applicant hereafter Liang et al) (see full google translation here WO2020124610A1 - Transmission speed control method and device - Google Patents.)
6. Consider claims 1, 8 and15. Hurwitz discloses a method, system and media for wirelessly providing an audio stream (lines 1-2 in para 0001), including: outputting audio associated with a first application (mobile phone) of a plurality of applications (see col 3, lines 14-24 for different audio applications) to an audio output device using a Connected Isochronous Stream (CIS) (0023 Bluetooth LE) of a wireless link between an audio source (2) and the audio output device (4); determining that a number of audio packets stored in a buffer (12) of the audio source is greater than a predetermined threshold for the buffer of the audio source (0036 describes draining the buffer when full which is the threshold. Note: knowing the buffer size and that the packet size is fixed will take a simple calculation to arrive at the number of packets that would fill the buffer); determining that an acknowledgement packet has been received from the audio output device; and in response to determining that the acknowledgement packet has been received from the audio output device, flushing audio packets stored in the buffer of the audio source (0033 describes the draining of the packets from the buffer 12 after ack signal). Hurwitz teaches reducing the rate that the audio source 8 outputs audio blocks of data when there are link issues (related to the buffer being full) as opposed to modifying the wireless link. However, modifying the transmission parameters of the CIS connection when there are link issues in notoriously well known in the art as taught by Liang et al (see summary of the invention). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date to modify the transmission parameters as taught by Liang et al rather than limiting the audio blocks at the source to allow for a more reliable system.
7. For the plurality of applications and how they are applied called for in claims 7 and 14, see Hurwitz (col 3, lines 14-24 for different audio applications) where it inherently follows that once detected as the source, the same connection logic would apply as stated in Liang et al (see summary of invention as stated above).
8. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang et al., further in view of Kumar et al US 11445286 B1
Consider claims 2, 9 and 16. The combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang fail to teach determining that a link condition score for the wireless link between the audio source and the audio output device is below a predetermined threshold; and in response, modifying the wireless link between the audio source and the audio output device. However, Kumar et al teaches such. (Note: for the link condition score see Kumar et al See col 16,lines 16-50 which teaches a signal quality value (based in part on RSSI or SNR); for the threshold the see col 17, lines 10-25; and the modifying the wireless link reads on change of position between the first device 110a to the second device 110b). Since Kumar et al is from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious before the effective date to use the score as a trigger to modify the wireless link in the combination thus providing a more efficient audio system.
9. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang et al., further in view of Soulier et al. US2022/0248333 A1.
10. Consider claims 3, 10 and 17 The combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang fail to teach wherein modifying the wireless link between the audio source and the audio output device comprises modifying a Flush Timeout (FT) value for the CIS of the wireless link. However, Soulier from the same field of endeavor teaches such. See claim 8 of Soulier et al. It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute changing the FT value as a means to modify the link by that taught by the Liang et al resulting in a quicker fix to audio streaming degradation.
11. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang et al. further in view of Shakya et al US10375652 B2.
12. Consider claims 4, 11 and 18. The combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang fail to teach modifying the wireless link between the audio source and the audio output device comprises increasing transmission power of a wireless communication interface of the audio source. However, Shakya et al from the same field of endeavor teaches such (see fig 8 and corresponding description based on RSSI). It would have been obvious to use the teachings of Shakya et al in the combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang to achieve better audio during poor conditions thus increasing the marketable value of the system.
13. Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang et al further in view of Shriner et al WO 2021/087522A1.
14. The combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang fail to teach modifying the wireless link between the audio source and the audio output device comprises transmitting signals using a beamforming technique. However, from the audio streaming environment, Shriner et al teaches such (see abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teaches of Shriner et al in the combination base on the conditions of the environment of the system giving it a more flexible overall system usage.
15. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz US 20220014302 in view of WO 2020124610A1 Liang et al further in view of Gong US 20220312167A1.
16. Consider claims 6, 13 and 20. The combination of Hurwitz in view of Liang fail to teach wherein the audio output device is a set of true wireless earbuds. However, Gong teaches such (see abstract where Gong further teaches transmitting a second audio data when no acknowledgment is received.) It would have been obvious to use the true wireless earbuds taught by Gong since they are set up for such redundancy type communication.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue near the bottom of page 8 that Hurwitz fails to teach a “successful acknowledgement follows a buffer overflow determination to trigger a flush.” First, buffer “overflow” isn’t claimed, threshold is which could be just prior to the buffers limit. Second, the sequence of steps isn’t clear that it follows or not as pointed out in the 112b rejection.
Applicants argue in the middle of page 8 that (0033) and (0036) of Hurwitz are distinct operational states which is incorrect. Paragraphs (0033-0036) of Hurwitz run concurrently, with “poor conditions (0035)” being one scenario and draining audio packets when full being another. In each of these conditions there is always an acknowledgement message for the packet (see last part of 0033) which happens as one packet come in after another even after the threshold is reached and the buffer drained.
18. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/ Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646