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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 1/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2015/0023521) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0070817) in view of Lambourne et al. (US 7571014).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a first playback device comprising:
a network interface (62) (¶ 0056, 0060);
at least one processor (64) (¶ 0056); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory) comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to (¶ 0056):
stream, via the network interface from at least one server (Fig. 1: 1’, 2’, and/or 3’, or ¶ 0060: remote computer), data representing multiple media items (100’ and 200’) (¶ 0068, 0060), wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to select the respective calibrations for the media items of the multiple media items from among the multiple stored calibrations based on the respective types of the media items comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to (¶ 0056):
select a first calibration (equalization) for a first media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item is a particular type of audio signal and/or audio source (¶ 0071); and
select a second calibration (equalization) for a second media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item is a particular type of audio signal and/or audio source (¶ 0071);
before playing back each media item, cause the first playback device
while the selected calibration is applied, play back the respective media item (Fig. 1: output of 64 is sent to speakers 60a/b to be played); and
Jones is not relied upon to disclose
select a first calibration for a first media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item comprises primarily pre-recorded spoken dialog; and
select a second calibration for a second media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item consists of music.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seo discloses
select a first calibration (equalization) for a first media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item comprises primarily pre-recorded spoken dialog (¶ 0065, 0070: dialogue which can be from news, drama, movie, etc.); and
select a second calibration for a second media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item consists of music (¶ 0065, 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
select a first calibration for a first media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item comprises primarily pre-recorded spoken dialog; and
select a second calibration for a second media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item consists of music,
the motivation being to address the issue of: it is cumbersome for users to manually change the setting of the equalizer according to the features or the signal characteristics of the sound data (Seo - ¶ 0006).
Jones-Seo is not relied upon to disclose
before playing back each media item, cause the first playback device and a second playback device to apply the selected calibration for the media item, wherein application of the selected calibration modifies respective equalizations of the first playback device and the second playback device; and
cause, via the network interface, the second playback to play back the respective media item synchronously with playback of the respective media item by the first playback device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lambourne discloses applying calibration (bass and treble, i.e. equalization) to a plurality of playback devices (Fig. 1: 102, 104, 106) in a group (detx14,69, col. 4, lines 11-28 and col. 14, lines 30-42), and
cause, via the network interface (Fig. 2C: 280) (detx36, col. 8, lines 38-49), the second playback to play back the respective media item synchronously with playback of the respective media item by the first playback device (detx15, col. 4, lines 28-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
cause the selected calibration to be applied to the first playback device as well as a second playback device, and
cause, via the network interface, the second playback to play back the respective media item synchronously with playback of the respective media item by the first playback device.
which would result in:
before playing back each media item, cause the first playback device and a second playback device to apply the selected calibration for the media item, wherein application of the selected calibration modifies respective equalizations of the first playback device and the second playback device,
cause, via the network interface, the second playback to play back the respective media item synchronously with playback of the respective media item by the first playback device,
the motivation being introduce the ability to control audio players as a group and/or to avoid a non-homogenously equalized audio environment (Lambourne - bstx8, col. 2, lines 5-10), and to address the issue that source sharing is difficult (Lambourne - bstx6, col. 1, lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 2, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 1, and Jones discloses further comprising at least one audio amplifier (¶ 0100, 0010, 0034), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to play back the respective media item comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
play back the respective media item via the at least one audio amplifier (¶ 0100, 0010, 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 2, and Jones discloses further comprising at least one audio transducer (Fig. 1: 60a), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to play back the respective media item comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
play back the respective media item via the at least one audio amplifier and the at least one audio transducer (see signal flow of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 1, and Jones discloses wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to select the respective calibrations for the media items of the multiple media items from among the multiple stored calibrations based on the respective types of the media items comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
select a particular first calibration that at least partially offsets differences in relative positions between the first playback device and the second playback device relative to one or more listener locations (¶ 0076: the example of equalization being changed to compensate for the location of the rear speakers relative to the listener compared to the front speakers is just an example, and can be applied to other similar types of situations involving different locations of sound output relative to a listener including the claimed situation).
Regarding claim 5, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 1, and Jones discloses wherein the particular media item is an audio track of a video (¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 6, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 1, and Jones discloses wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to select the respective calibrations for the media items of the multiple media items from among the multiple stored calibrations based on the respective types of the media items comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
select a particular second calibration that at least partially offsets acoustic characteristics of an environment in which the first playback device and second playback device are located (¶ 0076: the example of equalization being changed to compensate for the open sun-roof is just an example, and can be applied to other similar types of situations involving an acoustic environment being changed including the claimed situation).
Regarding claim 7, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the playback device of claim 1, and Jones discloses wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the fist playback device is configured to select the respective calibrations for the media items of the multiple media items from among the multiple stored calibrations based on the respective types of the media items comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
select a particular calibration for a particular media item of the multiple media items when the type of the particular media item comprises audio received by the playback device from a particular source (¶ 0071, 0080-0081).
Claims 9-15, 17-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1-7, 1-4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above in the rejections of claims 1-7, 1-4, respectively.
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Seo in view of Lambourne in view of Bates et al. (US 2014/0154993).
Regarding claim 8, Jones-Seo-Lambourne discloses the first playback device of claim 7.
Jones-Seo-Lambourne is not relied upon to disclose wherein the particular source is a particular type of streaming audio service.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bates discloses different types of sources of audio content including a streaming audio service as a source of audio content (¶ 0055).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try: different types of sources of audio content including a streaming audio service as a source of audio content,
which would result in: wherein the particular source is a particular type of streaming audio service,
the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address the issue of what all types of sources of audio content can be used in the invention of Jones. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Claims 16 recite similar limitations as claims 8, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above in the rejections of claims 8, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 9) that:
“Applicant submits that claim 1, 9, and 17, as amended, are not anticipated by Jones because claim 1, 9, and 17 now recite limitations not taught by Jones. Thus, the pending § 102 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 over Jones should be withdrawn.”
In response, the examiner submits that the grounds of rejection have been updated to address newly amended claims 1, 9, and 17.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 9-10) that:
“Moreover, even if the amended features could be considered to be taught by another reference, Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill would not modify Jones to use multiple playback devices (much less practice the specific claim limtiations) given the specific context of in-car audio systems. For instance, it would be impractical to have multiple networked playback devices within a vehicle, and there is no reason for nor expectation of success in networking playback devices in multiple vehicles.”
In response, the examiner submits that Jones teaches that the invention can be utilized in applications other than vehicles, such as houses (¶ 0009, 0055). In addition, newly cited reference Lambourne which is relied upon to teach the use of multiple playback devices also discloses utilization in a house (e.g., detx23, paragraph spanning cols. 5-6), so the references match in terms of where they can be used.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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 on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692