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 .
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, 3, 4, 11-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss et al. (US 2011/0130203) in view of Sole (US 2012/0015605).
Referring to Claim 1, Reiss teaches a system (fig. 2), comprising:
an audio device that comprises at least an audio output component (see 140a, 140b, 160a, 160b, and 111 in fig. 1 which shows a headset which outputs audio through headset speakers), the audio device being configurable to process audio for a player participating in an online game (see paragraph 59 which shows gamer 200a interacting with other gamers over network 210), wherein the audio device is configured to:
communicate signals with an audio basestation 130 (fig. 1), based on the audio device coming within a determined distance of the audio basestation (see paragraph 76 which shows mixing modules 140a,b paired with base station and headsets connected to mixing modules and paragraph 48 which shows a determined distance of 150 ft.);
determine based on the communicated signals whether to pair with the audio basestation; in response to a determination to proceed with the pairing, pair with the audio basestation (see paragraph 98 which shows the automatic detecting and pairing between the base station and audio mixing modules/headsets that are in discovery mode where it is known in the art to require the processing of the discovery signals, such that the signal must be changed and a determination must be made to proceed before pairing takes place within the Bluetooth protocol embodiment), and
communicate audio via the audio basestation (see paragraphs 46 and 76 showing transmission of audio from game console through mixing module to headset).
Reiss does not teach wherein determining whether to pair comprises:
obtaining, from or based on the communicated signals, device related information relating to the audio device and the audio basestation, wherein the device related information comprises information relating to one or both of capabilities and available resources of the audio basestation;
assessing one or both of capabilities and available resources of the audio basestation; and
determining whether to pair based on the assessing of capabilities and/or resources of the audio basestation;
wherein pairing with the audio basestation comprises configuring a communication link based on one or more communication related parameters obtained from or based on the communicated signals.
Sole teaches wherein determining whether to pair comprises:
obtaining, from or based on the communicated signals, device related information relating to the audio device and the audio basestation, wherein the device related information comprises information relating to one or both of capabilities and available resources of the audio basestation (see paragraph 23 which shows a headset, which is the audio device, discovering a closeby device which supports the requirement features and 53 of fig. 2 which shows the headset gathering information to see if the requirement features are met);
assessing one or both of capabilities and available resources of the audio basestation (see 67 of fig. 3 which shows assessment of profile information to see if the device supports the requirement features); and
determining whether to pair based on the assessing of capabilities and/or resources of the audio basestation (see 68 of fig. 3 which shows the process of determination to pair by initiating the process or ignoring the process);
wherein pairing with the audio basestation comprises configuring a communication link based on one or more communication related parameters obtained from or based on the communicated signals (see paragraph 66 which shows a secure pairing through a communication link taking place through Bluetooth parameters). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Sole to the device of Reiss in order to provide a more reliable pairing between audio devices while maintaining high audio quality when more than one output device is used.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 1.
Referring to Claims 3 and 15, Reiss also teaches the audio device further configured to monitor for one or more operation conditions (paragraph 98 noting discovery mode of audio mixing module).
Referring to Claims 4 and 16, Reiss also teaches managing the pairing with the audio basestation based on the one or more operation conditions, wherein the managing comprises determining whether to maintain the pairing with the audio basestation (paragraph 76 noting option to unpair).
Referring to Claim 11, Reiss also teaches the audio basestation comprising or integrated into a stand-alone device (see 130 of fig. 1 as a base station by itself).
Referring to Claim 12, Reiss also teaches the audio device comprising a headset (see headsets 160a and 160b in fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss and Sole and further in view of Seshadri (US 2006/0166718).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Reiss and Sole does not teach the communicated signals comprising identification and/or validation information. Seshadri teaches the communicated signals comprising identification and/or validation information (see paragraph 38 which shows validation signals being exchanged). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Seshadri to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to provide a more reliable pairing between audio devices while maintaining security.
Referring to Claim 17, Seshadri also teaches identifying and/or validating one or both of the player and the audio basestation based on the processing of the exchanged signals (see paragraph 38 which shows validation signals being exchanged). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Seshadri to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to provide a more reliable pairing between audio devices while maintaining security.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss and Sole and further in view of Holcomb (US 2010/0021176).
Referring to Claims 2 and 14, the combination of Reiss and Sole does not teach the determined distance corresponding to physical contact between the audio device and the audio basestation. Holcombe teaches the determined distance corresponding to physical contact between the audio device and the audio basestation (paragraph 45 noting the capacitive touch). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Holcombe to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to increase reliability in communications between multiple objects in online gaming.
Referring to Claims 6 and 18, Holcombe also teaches the audio device comprising a near field communication (NFC) circuit for facilitating the communication of signals via NFC (fig. 6 where 440 and 442 shows near-field). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Holcombe to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to increase reliability in communications between multiple objects in online gaming.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss and Sole and further in view of Alameh et al. (US 2010/0299390).
Referring to Claims 7 and 19, the combination of Reiss and Sole does not teach the audio device further configured to pair with a second audio basestation based on signals exchanged between the audio device and the second audio basestation, and processing of the signals exchanged with the second audio basestation. Alameh teaches the audio device further configured to pair with a second audio basestation based on signals exchanged between the audio device and the second audio basestation, and processing of the signals exchanged with the second audio basestation (paragraph 88 noting an audio device coupled to multiple other cell phones and cell phones are known in the art to also be able to act as base stations). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Alameh to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to provide more reliable online gaming to a higher number of users.
Referring to Claims 8 and 20, Alameh also teaches the audio device further configured to maintain pairing with the audio basestation after pairing with the second audio basestation (paragraph 88 noting simultaneous pairing to multiple devices).
Referring to Claims 9 and 21, Alameh also teaches the audio device is further configured to determine whether to maintain the pairing with the audio basestation after pairing with the second audio basestation, based on availability of communication links between the audio device and the audio basestation (paragraph 95 noting the multiple available pathways).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss and Sole and further in view of Mallinson et al. (US 2011/0159813).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination of Reiss and Sole does not teach the audio basestation integrated into the game console. Mallinson also teaches the audio basestation integrated into the game console (see paragraph 60 which shows the headset pairing with a base computing device where the base computing device operates as both a base station and a game console as described in paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Mallinson to the modified device of Reiss and Sole in order to provide more secure online gaming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648