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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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 14-33 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-32 of U.S. Patent No. 11825275. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the pending application are broader than the claims in the patent. In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQT61, broad claims in the pending application are rejected as obvious double patenting over previously patented narrow claims. For example, independent claim 14 of the pending application corresponds to claim 14 of the patent except the claims in the pending application do not include the limitations of a first and second mode of operation. The same is true for independent claim 24 of the pending application and claim 24 of the patent. Additionally, claim 15 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the patent; claim 16 of the application corresponds to claim 16 of the patent; claim 17 of the application corresponds to claim 17 of the patent; claim 18 of the application corresponds to claim 18 of the patent; claim 19 of the application corresponds to claim 19 of the patent; claim 20 of the application corresponds to claim 20 of the patent; claim 21 of the application corresponds to claim 21 of the patent; claim 22 of the application corresponds to claim 22 of the patent; and claim 23 of the application corresponds to claim 23 of the patent; claim 25 of the application corresponds to claim 25 of the patent; claim 26 of the application corresponds to claim 26 of the patent; claim 27 of the application corresponds to claim 27 of the patent; claim 28 of the application corresponds to claim 28 of the patent; claim 29 of the application corresponds to claim 29 of the patent; claim 30 of the application corresponds to claim 30 of the patent; claim 31 of the application corresponds to claim 31 of the patent; claim 32 of the application corresponds to claim 32 of the patent; claim 33 of the application corresponds to claim 33 of the patent.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18-19, 21-26, 28-29 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood (US Patent No. 6178514).
Regarding claim 14, Wood teaches a system (Fig 2, system 10) comprising: a universal serial bus (USB) interface (Fig 3, master USB hub 42) configurable to facilitate communication with a device via an audio signal (Fig 3, 6 & column 12 lines 55-58, signals 87 representing digital audio sent from master USB hub 42 through USB speaker circuitry 21 to amplifier 84); a power management circuit configurable to supply power to the device via a power signal over the USB interface (Fig 3, power supplied from master USB hub 42 through wires 66 and 68) configured to determine, when the device is capable of receiving the power (column 15 lines 12-16, current sensor 92 triggers PWM controller 132 when current is sensed & column 25 lines 37-57, host computer polls USB speaker circuitry 21 for power information after transmitting control signal), a level of the power signal for supplying the power (Fig 22, software routine 400 to determine whether to operate in high power or low power mode).
Regarding claim 15, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein: the system comprises an audio processor associated with a gain, the gain of the audio signal is set to a first level (Fig 22, low power 410); and the gain of the power signal is set to a second level that is higher than the first level (Fig 22, high power 406).
Regarding claim 16, Wood teaches the system of claim 15, wherein: the first level is compatible with a speaker in the device, and the second level is incompatible with the speaker (column 9 lines 61-67 & column 10 lines 1-22, USB standard supports both low power “100 mA” and high power “500 mA” devices, high power is incompatible for low power devices).
Regarding claim 18, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the system is operable to communicate a mode of operation to the device (Fig 22, software routine 400 to determine whether to operate in high power or low power mode).
Regarding claim 19, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein: the device comprises a battery, and the power signal is operable to charge the battery (column 15 lines 2-9, voltage control 131 monitors energy storage device 98 and can reduce or halt power converter 94 when energy storage device 98 reaches its limit).
Regarding claim 21, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the audio signal carries music (column 16 lines 41-43, music).
Regarding claim 22, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the audio signal carries voice (column 24 lines 42-43, pre-recorded sound such as DVD and CDs include voice).
Regarding claim 23, Wood teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the system comprises a digital audio processor (column 12 lines 36-45, USB decoder/DAC 96 used to decode incoming signals).
Regarding claim 24, Wood teaches a method comprising: outputting an audio signal to a device via a universal serial bus (USB) interface (Fig 3, master USB hub 42); determining, via a sensor (column 15 lines 12-16, current sensor 92), when the device is capable of receiving power (column 15 lines 12-16, current sensor 92 triggers PWM controller 132 when current is sensed & column 25 lines 37-57, host computer polls USB speaker circuitry 21 for power information after transmitting control signal); determining, via the sensor, an amount of power the device is capable of receiving (column 15 lines 2-9, PWM controller 132 uses voltage control 131 to monitor power stored in energy storage device 98); and outputting a power signal to the device, via the USB interface, according to the amount of power the device is capable of receiving (Fig 22, software routine 400 to determine whether to operate in high power or low power mode).
Regarding claim 25, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, comprising: amplifying the audio signal to a first level (Fig 22, low power 410); and amplifying the power signal to a second level that is higher than the first level (Fig 22, high power 406).
Regarding claim 26, Wood teaches the method of claim 25, wherein: the first level is compatible with a speaker in the device, and the second level is incompatible with the speaker (column 9 lines 61-67 & column 10 lines 1-22, USB standard supports both low power “100 mA” and high power “500 mA” devices, high power is incompatible for low power devices).
Regarding claim 28, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, comprising: communicating, to the device, that the power signal is being output (column 12 lines 46-54, control signals sent from main USB hub include entering/exiting suspend mode which determines whether or not power is being sent).
Regarding claim 29, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, comprising: charging a battery of the device via the power signal (column 15 lines 2-9, voltage control 131 monitors energy storage device 98 and can reduce or halt power converter 94 when energy storage device 98 reaches its limit).
Regarding claim 31, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the audio signal carries music (column 16 lines 41-43, music).
Regarding claim 32, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the audio signal carries voice (column 24 lines 42-43, pre-recorded sound such as DVD and CDs include voice).
Regarding claim 33, Wood teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the method is performed via a digital audio processor (column 12 lines 36-45, USB decoder/DAC 96 used to decode incoming signals).
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent No. 6178514) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Savant (US Pub No. 2013/0083927).
Regarding claim 17, Wood teaches the system of claim 14.
Wood does not explicitly teach wherein the power signal comprises a sine wave at a frequency higher than 20 kHz.
Savant teaches a power signal comprising a sine wave at a frequency between 20-23 kHz (See Savant Fig 2 & ¶ [0019-0020], electrical signal between 20-23 kHz).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the signal taught by Savant with the system taught by Wood. As stated by Savant ¶ [0020], the power signal is separated from the audio signal by the audible threshold and at the increased frequency range, the power signal has increased transfer efficiency. This provides several benefits including enhanced signal strength and efficiency of the transmitted signals.
Regarding claim 27, Wood teaches the method of claim 24.
Wood does not explicitly teach wherein the power signal comprises a sine wave at a frequency higher than 20 kHz.
Savant teaches a power signal comprising a sine wave at a frequency between 20-23 kHz (See Savant Fig 2 & ¶ [0019-0020], electrical signal between 20-23 kHz).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the signal taught by Savant with the method taught by Wood. As stated by Savant ¶ [0020], the power signal is separated from the audio signal by the audible threshold and at the increased frequency range, the power signal has increased transfer efficiency. This provides several benefits including enhanced signal strength and efficiency of the transmitted signals.
Claim(s) 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent No. 6178514) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chung et al (US Pub No. 2008/0153351).
Regarding claim 20, Wood teaches the system of claim 14.
Wood does not explicitly teach the use of an audio jack.
Chung teaches a USB to audio jack adapter (See Chung Fig 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the audio jack connector taught by Chung with the system taught by Wood. Chung ¶ [0004-0005] states that it is common for audio playing devices to have an audio jack while devices with storage functions tend to have USB interfaces. To avoid the need for multiple cables it is advantageous to have an adapter that can connect the two different connectors allowing for ease of use for the user.
Regarding claim 30, Wood teaches the method of claim 24.
Wood does not explicitly teach the use of an audio jack.
Chung teaches a USB to audio jack adapter (See Chung Fig 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the audio jack connector taught by Chung with the method taught by Wood. Chung ¶ [0004-0005] states that it is common for audio playing devices to have an audio jack while devices with storage functions tend to have USB interfaces. To avoid the need for multiple cables it is advantageous to have an adapter that can connect the two different connectors allowing for ease of use for the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hopp (US Patent No. 7668321) teaches an automatic power foldback for audio applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6:30 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694