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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,799,347. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are generally broader version with minor wording variation from the Patent claims, with the limitation of the Patent such as “replacing said detected occurrence of said one of said one or more predefined words with predefined audio that is output via speakers of said gaming headset” and “monitoring…audio channels” excluded from the instant independent claims. The dependent claims of the pending application are also essentially identical to the dependent claims of the Patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,262,679. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are generally broader version with minor wording variation from the Patent claims, with the limitation of the Patent such as “replacing said detected occurrence of said one of said one or more predefined words with predefined audio that is output via speakers of said gaming headset” and “monitoring…audio channels” excluded from the instant independent claims. The dependent claims of the pending application are also essentially identical to the dependent claims of the Patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,056,131. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are generally broader version with minor wording variation from the Patent claims, with the limitation of the Patent such as “wherein said plurality of audio channels comprises game audio channels and a chat audio channel” in first paragraph of claim 1, and “from a sound database in an external storage device” in the second paragraph of the claim, now excluded from the instant independent claims. Similar limitations are also excluded from other independent claims of the instant application. The dependent claims of the instant application are also essentially identical to the dependent claims of the Patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,594. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are generally broader version with minor wording variation from the Patent claims, with the limitation of the Patent such as “monitoring…audio channels”, and “from a sound database in an external storage device” in claim 1 now excluded from the instant independent claims. Similar limitations are also excluded from other independent claims of the instant application. The dependent claims of the instant application are also essentially identical to the dependent claims of the Patent.
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.
Claims 21-25, 27-35, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey (US 2014/0358520) in view of Sharma (US 2014/0150009) and Meneses et al. (US 2014/0073429).
Claim 21
Davey discloses a method, comprising: in a gaming headset (204 of Fig. 2, [0013]) that receives an audio signal during play of a game ([0016], The filter 302 receives audio and filters the audio based on parameters that can be provided by the user interface 304 to yield filtered audio for real-time online activities (e.g., video chatting, gaming, etc.).):
monitoring the audio signal for received signatures associated with the one or more predefined words; the audio information comprising downloaded signatures that correspond to one or more predefined words; comparing the received signatures from the audio signal to the downloaded signatures, the downloaded signatures being selected for the comparing according to a particular game and player of the particular game; (As similarly provided in the rejection of the limitation in the parent application 17/363422, [0016], The filter 302 receives audio and filters the audio based on parameters that can be provided by the user interface 304 to yield filtered audio for real-time online activities (e.g., video chatting, gaming, etc.). The filter 302 includes a speech recognizer 310, a comparator 312 and a filtering device 316. The comparator 312 interacts with parameters 314 that can be stored in a database and/or relayed in real-time to the comparator 312. The user interface 304 can be used to supply a parameter provided by the user 308. [0017], The speech recognizer 310 converts the audio to text and the comparator 312 compares the converted speech to prohibited words from the parameters 314. Examiner notes the particular player is the user 308 who specifically entered the parameters which can then be stored in a database for comparison with the incoming audio. Examiner further notes the signatures is interpreted as parameters of Davey);
detecting an occurrence of the one or more predefined words based on the comparison ([0017] The speech recognizer 310 can utilize, for example, speech-to-text technologies and/or audio envelope recognition technologies and the like. In one scenario, the parameters 314 include words that the user 308 desires to have filtered. The speech recognizer 310 converts the audio to text and the comparator 312 compares the converted speech to prohibited words from the parameters 314. Matches/near matches in the comparator 314 are passed to the filtering device 316 and are muted/removed from the outgoing filtered audio…The parameters 314 can now include signal envelopes of prohibited words which are supplied to the comparator 312. The comparator compares the incoming audio from the speech recognizer 310 to the parameters using the audio envelopes found and marked with timing by the speech recognizer 310. When a prohibited envelope (i.e., a match and/or a near match) is found, the comparator 312 notifies the filtering device 316 to mute and/or otherwise remove that word/language from the outgoing filtered audio. This can be accomplished by using the timing information from the speech recognizer 310.);
and in response to detecting the occurrence of the one or more predefined words, filtering out at least a portion of the detected one or more predefined words ([0017], Matches/near matches in the comparator 314 are passed to the filtering device 316 and are muted/removed from the outgoing filtered audio.).
Davey may not clearly detail the audio monitoring and processing including filtering of sounds are performed by the headset itself; downloading audio information for a particular game to the gaming headset.
Sharma teaches in [0097] that Personal audio device 730 includes headphones, and further teaches in [0103] that filter processing is performed by the device – “Personal audio device 730 may include a database that matches a given unsuitable word with a list of alternate versions of the word each word in the list satisfying a different content authorization level. Personal audio device 730 may receive the unsuitable word being spoken on shared screen 701 and transmit a query to the database that includes the content authorization level of the third user. The database may receive the query and return one of the words in the database that match the unsuitable word and the content authorization level of the third user. Personal audio device 730 may then play back audibly the retrieved word in place of the unsuitable word when the media asset is being presented to the first, second and third users.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to provide content control method as taught by Sharma with the audio filtering method of Davey, because doing so would have prevented the user from hearing or seeing content the user may find objectionable ([0054] of Sharma).
Although the combination teaches audio information comprising audio signatures that correspond to one or more predefined words ( [0017] of Davey, In one scenario, the parameters 314 include words that the user 308 desires to have filtered. The speech recognizer 310 converts the audio to text and the comparator 312 compares the converted speech to prohibited words from the parameters 314. Matches/near matches in the comparator 314 are passed to the filtering device 316 and are muted/removed from the outgoing filtered audio.), the combination fails to explicitly disclose downloading audio information for a particular game to said gaming headset.
Analogous art Meneses similarly is directed at a headset system using audio profile to suppress undesired audio ([0051] An audio profile, for instance, may cause the signal processor to emphasize, isolate, or suppress certain sounds output from a video game, thereby enhancing the gamer's experience of the game and assisting the gamer during game play). Meneses teaches downloading audio information for a particular game to said gaming headset ([0012]some embodiments of the present technology allow users of the audio headset system to…upload such audio profiles to the audio headset system for use [0052] an audio profile may be associated and configured for use with a particular video game genre (e.g., simulators, fighting games, first-person shooting games, role-playing games, etc.) or a specific video game title (e.g., Call of Duty.RTM. by Activision). For example, profiles can be configured for game genres to enhance (or suppress) certain sound types as desired. [0054] In the illustrated example, the audio headset system includes two main modules, a headset receiver 203 and an audio headset 206, interfaced with game console 212 (or other audio source). In some embodiments, headset receiver 203 is physically integrated with headset 206.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to provide downloading of audio information profile as taught by Meneses with the audio filtering method using parameters of Davey in view of Sharma, because doing so would have emphasized, isolated, or suppressed certain sounds output from a video game, thereby enhancing the gamer's experience of the game and assisting the gamer during game play, and also perform the dual role of emphasizing desired sounds while suppressing undesired sounds. ([0051] of Meneses).
Claim 22
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more predefined words are associated with one or more particular sounds in a data structure ([0016] of Davey, The comparator 312 interacts with parameters 314 that can be stored in a database and/or relayed in real-time to the comparator 312.).
Claim 23
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the monitoring comprises comparing sounds on the audio signal with the one or more particular sounds in the data structure ([0016] of Davey, The comparator 312 interacts with parameters 314 that can be stored in a database and/or relayed in real-time to the comparator 312. See also [0017]-audio envelopes).
Claim 24
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the filtering comprises muting the audio signal so that the detected occurrence of the one or more predefined words is not output via the speakers of the gaming headset ([0002] of Davey, The audio from online, real-time games is routed through a filter to mute/remove inappropriate language.).
Claim 25
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, comprising muting a chat channel while continuing to output a game channel via the speakers of the gaming headset ([0002] of Davey, The audio from online, real-time games is routed through a filter to mute/remove inappropriate language. [0013] of Davey, Based on filtering parameters (e.g., parental control parameters and the like), the audio can be filtered or not and sent back to the network linked device 104. The activity server 102 can be, but is not limited to, an online gaming server, an online chat server and/or an online video chat server and the like.).
Claim 27
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, comprising determining a number of occurrences of the one or more predefined words in the received audio signal during a particular time period ([0021] of Davey, It is also possible for a system to track the frequency of use of prohibited language and/or of particular words.).
Claim 28
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 27, comprising upon the determined number of occurrences of the one or more predefined words during the particular time pe 'od rising above a threshold value, performing one or more of: activating a parental alert; activating an audio alert; playing a warning message via speakers of the gaming headset; powering down the gaming headset; and/or communicating an alert from the headset to a second screen communication device ([0021] of Davey, If a frequency reaches a
certain threshold, that user's audio can be completely muted/removed and the
like and/or a notification can be sent to a parent and/or other user notifying
them in real-time that bad language is being used frequently by user X and the
like.).
Claim 29
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 27, comprising: determining a source of the determined number of occurrences of the one or more predefined words; and if the source of the detected occurrences of the one or more predefined words is a chat channel, muting the chat channel while continuing to output game audio via the speakers of the gaming headset ([0021] of Davey, If a frequency reaches a certain threshold, that user's audio can be completely muted/removed and the like).
Claim 30
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the monitoring comprises performing signal analysis on the audio signal during the play of the particular game for the detecting of the occurrence of the one of the one or more predefined words ([0017] of Davey, The speech recognizer 310 can utilize, for example, speech-to-text technologies and/or audio envelope recognition technologies and the like.).
Claims 31 and 40
These claims recite substantially the same limitations, but broader (See limitation “and/or”) as those provided in claim 21 above, and therefore they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 32
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 22 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 33
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 23 and 30 above in combination, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 34
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 24 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 35
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 25 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 37
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 27 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 38
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 28 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 39
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 29 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey (US 2014/0358520) in view of Sharma (US 2014/0150009) and Meneses et al. (US 2014/0073429) and Danieli et al. (US 2006/0058103).
Claim 26
The combination further discloses the method according to claim 21, and teaches obscuring audio content may involve…replacing the original audio content with different audio content ([0055] of Sharma), except wherein the predefined audio comprises one or more tones so that the detected occurrence of the one or more predefined words is not output via the speakers of the gaming headset.
Danieli teaches wherein said predefined audio comprises one or more tones ([0007], Parents of younger children, or others, may also desire that expletives voiced during game play by the participants be blanked or bleeped so that they are not heard.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to provide replacement of media asset as taught by Danieli with the audio filtering method of Davey and Sharma and Meneses, because doing so would have enabled spectators to monitor participants' text and voice chat sessions during a game. ([0007] of Danieli)
Claim 36
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 26 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS H MAUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm, 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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 1-(571) 2707136. 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.
/THOMAS H MAUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692