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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on September 17, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 16–35 are now amended.
Claims 16–35 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response 8, with respect to the rejection of claims 30–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the newly amended scope of those claims. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 30–35 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response 8, with respect to the rejection of at least the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the newly amended scope of those claims. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of former claims 19, 26, and 33 (now incorporated into their respective parent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, Claims 16–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0026737 A1 (“Park”) in view of Chinese Patent Application No. 105872897 A (“Suo”) for the same reasons as given in the rejections of claims 19, 26, and 33.
Specifically, the Examiner is unpersuaded by the Applicant’s argument that Suo merely “enhances” tone quality, because Suo explicitly says that its adjustment of “tone quality” includes adjusting “a value of signal-to-noise ratio parameter of sound of a system in the terminal.” Suo ¶ 84 (emphasis added). The Applicant never explains why it believes that improving a signal-to-noise ratio isn’t a form of “noise reduction,” but clearly, changing the amount of noise relative to signal in the headphones is an example of reducing noise. The reference teaches the literal words of the claim, and the fact that Suo happens to categorize this improvement under the broader term of “tone quality enhancement” is simply a semantic argument that fails to address the underlying merits of the rejection. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to disclose or teach a claimed element).
For these reasons, claims 16–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Suo, and therefore, this application is not in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0026737 A1 (“Park”) in view of Chinese Patent Application No. 105872897 A (“Suo”).
The text and paragraph numbers quoted in this rejection are from a machine translation obtained from Espacenet, which is attached to this Office Action, and also available at <https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=CN&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=105872897&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en>.
Claim 16
Park teaches:
A method comprising:
Reference is made to FIGS. 2 and 5, which illustrate an electronic device and the method that the electronic device performs as part of its normal operation, respectively. See Park ¶¶ 33 and 54.
establishing a connection from an electronic device to an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is one of headphones, in-ear earphones, ear hook headphones, bone conduction headphones, or a sounder;
At the outset, prior to executing its program instructions, an “audio processor 230” establishes a connection between the electronic device’s controller 250 and a speaker 235. Park ¶ 37.
obtaining type information of the audio output device
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step includes “receiving a first input operation, wherein the first input operation comprises the type information,” rather than obtaining the type information from the audio output device itself. This is a reasonable interpretation because claim 16 is properly understood to include the scope of its dependent claims,1 without actually requiring any element later recited in any of the dependent claims.2 In this case, dependent claim 17 tells us that the step of “obtaining the type information” may include “receiving a first input operation, wherein the first input operation comprises the type information” in some embodiments, while dependent claim 18 tells us that there is a presumption against parent claim 16 requiring “obtaining the type information based on the product model.”
For its part, Park likewise discloses that the controller 250 may obtain, from the input unit 210, a “volume mode change request.” Park ¶¶ 55–56. “Here, the volume mode change corresponds to the change of a profile for each mode, which has been predefined for each mode in the storage 240 of the electronic device as described above.” Park ¶ 56. Specifically, each “volume mode” defines a different type of behavior for the speaker 235. See Park ¶¶ 40, 45, and 48.
selecting a volume adjustment mode based on the type information and the noise reduction information;
“[W]hen it is determined that the volume change request requires the volume mode change . . . the controller 250 changes and sets the volume mode, based on a profile designated by the user among profiles predefined for each mode.” Park ¶ 61.
receiving a volume adjustment instruction operation;
The controller 250 is programmed to obtain, from a subsequent input to the input unit 210, a “volume value change request.” Park ¶¶ 55–56.
adjusting a volume of a to-be-played audio based on the volume adjustment mode and the volume adjustment instruction operation to obtain an adjusted volume;
“[T]he controller 250 controls a volume value in response to the user's request based on a volume interval value set in the profile. That is, the controller 250 can sequentially control/adjust the volume up/down corresponding to the number of input times and an input direction by the user, in a volume interval according to the volume interval value.” Park ¶ 60.
and sending the to-be-played audio to the audio output device for playing at the adjusted volume.
“The audio processor 230 . . . outputs an audio signal input from the controller 250 through the speaker 235.” Park ¶ 37. “Further, the audio processor 230 can output an audio component that is increased/decreased according to the control of the user.” Park ¶ 37.
As mentioned above, Park does not appear to explicitly anticipate obtaining noise reduction information, wherein the noise reduction information indicates whether the audio output device enables a noise reduction function, and consequently Park’s selection of the volume adjustment mode is not further based on the noise reduction information.
Suo, however, teaches both this and several overlapping elements, including:
A method comprising:
“Please refer to FIG. 1, which is a flow chart of the method for adjusting sound quality provided by the first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG1, the method includes the following steps.” Suo ¶ 57.
establishing a connection from an electronic device to an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is one of headphones, in-ear earphones, ear hook headphones, bone conduction headphones, or a sounder;
In step S101, a headset “is connected to the terminal, wherein the headset can be connected to the terminal through a connection port, or the headset can also be connected to the terminal through a wireless connection.” Suo ¶ 61.
obtaining type information of the audio output device
Step S101 continues by having the terminal “[a]cquire a headset type identifier of a headset connected to a terminal.” Suo ¶ 58. “For example, the headphone type may be identified by the brand name, or by a number or a number corresponding to the brand name.” Suo ¶ 60.
and noise reduction information, wherein the noise reduction information indicates whether the audio output device enables a noise reduction function;
Next, in S102, “[a]fter the terminal obtains the headphone type identifier of the current headphone connected to the terminal, it can query the sound quality adjustment set corresponding to the headphone type identifier of the current headphone according to the correspondence between the headphone type identifiers and the sound quality adjustment sets pre-stored in the terminal system, and then obtain the sound quality adjustment parameters corresponding to the headphone type identifier of the current headphone.” Suo ¶ 64.
Importantly, “[t]he sound quality adjustment parameter can be a signal-to-noise ratio parameter.” Suo ¶ 84.
selecting the volume adjustment mode based on the type information and the noise reduction information.
“After the terminal obtains the sound quality adjustment set corresponding to the headphone type identifier of the current headphone, the terminal adjusts the value of the signal-to-noise ratio parameter of the sound of the system in the terminal according to the signal-to-noise ratio parameter in the sound quality adjustment set, thereby adjusting the sound quality state of the terminal.” Suo ¶ 84.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate Park’s known method of manually adjusting a volume adjustment mode with Suo’s known technique of querying pre-stored headphone type identifiers and their corresponding sound quality adjustments.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art had at least two independent reasons for combining Suo with Park before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, either of which are sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness. The first rationale for combining Suo with Park is that it is prima facie obvious to automate a manual activity. MPEP § 2144.04 (subsection III.). Notably, Suo’s disclosure demonstrates that the means for automating the manual activity in Park’s disclosure was already known prior to the claimed invention, leaving the skilled artisan with nothing more to do than simply combine the two for a reason that the courts already recognize as obvious.
Second, notwithstanding the rationale from MPEP § 2144.04, Suo demonstrates that one would have been motivated to combine the references because Suo’s automation “solve[s] the problem that the prior art cannot meet the sound quality requirements of different types of headphones and cannot intelligently provide the best sound quality playback effect for the current headphones connected to the terminal.” Suo ¶ 9.
Claim 17
Park and Suo teach the method according to claim 16, wherein obtaining the type information comprises:
receiving the type information from the audio output device; or receiving a first input operation, wherein the first input operation comprises the type information.
“First, the user can set a desired volume interval value through the <volume interval> field. For example, when the user inputs 6 as the volume interval value, the A-type volume level of FIG. 1 can be provided. Further, when the user inputs 3 as the volume interval value, the B-type volume level of FIG. 1 can be provided. Further, when the user inputs 1 as the volume interval value, the C-type volume level of FIG. 1 can be provided. That is, the interval of the volume level is set according to the volume interval value.” Park ¶ 48.
Claim 18
Park and Suo teach the method of claim 1, as well as the limitations that claim 18 adds to claim 1. All of the limitations will be discussed together below, as a whole, for context.
As mentioned in an earlier claim rejection, both Park and Suo teach the claimed method, and Suo further teaches:
A method comprising:
“Please refer to FIG. 1, which is a flow chart of the method for adjusting sound quality provided by the first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG1, the method includes the following steps.” Suo ¶ 57.
establishing a connection from an electronic device to an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is one of headphones, in-ear earphones, ear hook headphones, bone conduction headphones, or a sounder;
In step S101, a headset “is connected to the terminal, wherein the headset can be connected to the terminal through a connection port, or the headset can also be connected to the terminal through a wireless connection.” Suo ¶ 61.
obtaining type information of the audio output device, wherein obtaining the type information comprises: obtaining a product model of the audio output device; and
obtaining the type information based on the product model;
Step S101 continues by having the terminal “[a]cquire a headset type identifier of a headset connected to a terminal.” Suo ¶ 58. “For example, the headphone type may be identified by the brand name, or by a number or a number corresponding to the brand name.” Suo ¶ 60.
selecting a volume adjustment mode based on the type information;
Next, in step S102, “[a]fter the terminal obtains the headphone type identifier of the current headphone connected to the terminal, it can query the sound quality adjustment set corresponding to the headphone type identifier of the current headphone according to the correspondence between the headphone type identifiers and the sound quality adjustment sets pre-stored in the terminal system, and then obtain the sound quality adjustment parameters corresponding to the headphone type identifier of the current headphone.” Suo ¶ 64.
“Specifically, the sound quality adjustment parameter includes . . . a volume parameter.” Suo ¶ 82.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate Park’s known method of manually adjusting a volume adjustment mode with Suo’s known technique of querying pre-stored headphone type identifiers and their corresponding sound quality adjustments.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art had at least two independent reasons for combining Suo with Park before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, either of which are sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness. The first rationale for combining Suo with Park is that it is prima facie obvious to automate a manual activity. MPEP § 2144.04 (subsection III.). Notably, Suo’s disclosure demonstrates that the means for automating the manual activity in Park’s disclosure was already known prior to the claimed invention, leaving the skilled artisan with nothing more to do than simply combine the two for a reason that the courts already recognize as obvious.
Second, notwithstanding the rationale from MPEP § 2144.04, Suo demonstrates that one would have been motivated to combine the references because Suo’s automation “solve[s] the problem that the prior art cannot meet the sound quality requirements of different types of headphones and cannot intelligently provide the best sound quality playback effect for the current headphones connected to the terminal.” Suo ¶ 9.
Claim 19
Park and Suo teach the method of claim 16,
wherein the volume adjustment mode is a customized volume adjustment mode.
Instead of using a pre-stored default volume control mode, “a volume mode [may be] defined by the user.” Park ¶ 41.
Claim 20
Park and Suo teach the method of claim 16,
wherein the volume adjustment mode is a system default mode.
“The storage 240 can store various data, etc. generated and utilized in the electronic device,” including “a plurality of profiles in which a volume control value is set according to each of the multiple volume modes.” Park ¶ 38.
Claim 21
Park discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein after obtaining the type information, the method further comprises
outputting the type information using a pop-up window on an interface.
“The mode change information can be provided in a pop-up form on the display unit 220.” Park ¶ 68.
Claim 22
Park discloses the method according to claim 16,
wherein in the volume adjustment mode, each of a plurality of scales corresponds to different volume.
“As illustrated in FIG. 1, the volume system according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention can be divided into multiple volume levels having different volume intervals. For example, the volume system shown in FIG. 1 is divided into 3 volume levels including an A-type volume level in which <6> is assigned as a volume interval value, a B-type volume level in which <3> is assigned as a volume interval value, and a C-type volume level in which <1> is assigned as a volume interval value.” Park ¶ 26.
Claims 23–29
Claims 23–29 each recite an electronic device that performs exactly the same method as corresponding claims 16–22. In the rejections of those claims, it was shown that Park discloses each and every element, and the rejection was made based on Park disclosing the electronic device for performing the same (FIGS. 2 and 5). Therefore, claims 23–29 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for the corresponding method claims.
Claims 30–35
Claims 30–35 are directed to the computer program stored on substantially the same memory that the electronic device of claims 23–299 stores its identical version of the computer program. Therefore, claims 30–35 are rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for those respective claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Prosecution Insights