The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim 13 is objected to on line 8 because it appears “an audio output device” should be “the audio output device” to clearly refer to the audio output device recited on line 3 of the claim. Perhaps the claim should be amended accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio output device”. Which audio output device, of the first audio output device and the second audio output device, is one referring to here? Claim 4 is indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio output information”. Which audio output information, of the first audio output information and the second audio output information, is one referring to here? Claim 5 is indefinite on line 2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio output device”. Which audio output device, of the first audio output device and the second audio output device, is one referring to here?
Claim 5 is further indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio output information”. Which audio output information, of the first audio output information and the second audio output information, is one referring to here?
Claim 6 is indefinite on line 2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio adjustment”. Which audio adjustment, of the first determined audio adjustment and the second determined audio adjustment, is one referring to here?
Claim 7 is indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the volume”. Which volume, of the first volume and the second volume, is one referring to here? Claim 7 is further indefinite on line 2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the connection”. Which connection, of the first wireless connection and the second wireless connection, is one referring to here? Claim 7 is further indefinite on line 2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio output device”. Which audio output device, of the first audio output device and the second audio output device, is one referring to here?
Claim 8 is indefinite on line 2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the audio adjustment”. Which audio adjustment, of the first determined audio adjustment and the second determined audio adjustment, is one referring to here?
Claim 8 is further indefinite on line 3 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the connection”. Which connection, of the first wireless connection and the second wireless connection, is one referring to here?
Claim 10 is indefinite on line 3 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker”. Which speaker, of the first speaker and the second speaker, is one referring to here?
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahowald (US 2009/0022329), as applied to claim 9 above, considered with Satongar et al. (US 2020/0084560).
Mahowald discloses an apparatus 100 (e.g., mobile device, media playback device; see para. 0029), comprising: an audio output unit to send audio to a first speaker 104-L and a second speaker 104-R (see fig. 1); an audio sensor 102 to detect an ambient sound level (see para. 0030 and fig. 2, regarding “during operation, the system uses the sound sensor to determine an ambient sound level from the environment in proximity to the device (operation 200)”); and a processor to: determine a most recent audio setting (e.g., audio output level) for the first speaker 104-L (see operation 210, regarding “Is The Audio Output [for the first speaker 104-L and the second speaker 104-R] Suitable For The Ambient Sound Level?”); determine an audio adjustment (e.g., volume adjustment) based on the ambient sound level and based on the most recent audio setting (operations 210-220); modify an output parameter (e.g., volume level) based on the audio adjustment; and send the audio to the second speaker 104-R (see para. 0030 and fig. 2, regarding “the system checks whether the audio output [for the first speaker 104-L and the second speaker 104-R] is suitable given the ambient sound level (operation 210), and if not, adjusts the audio output [for the first speaker 104-L and the second speaker 104-R] adaptively based on the ambient sound level (operation 220)”).
Mahowald discloses the invention as claimed, including sending audio to the first speaker 104-L and the second speaker 104-R, but fails to specifically teach that an audio interface sends the audio (e.g., wirelessly) to a first (left) speaker and a second (right) speaker. Satongar discloses a source electronic device 104 (e.g., laptop computer) which “may be communicatively coupled via wired or wireless communication links to the left and right speakers” 108, 106, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of allowing the user to connect to the left speaker 108 and the right speaker 106 without cumbersome wires (see fig. 1, and para. 0019). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mahowald, in view of Satongar, such that an audio interface sends the audio (e.g., wirelessly) to a first (left) speaker and a second (right) speaker. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of allowing the user to wirelessly connect to a left speaker and a right speaker without cumbersome wires
Regarding claim 10, Mahowald discloses that the processor is to further determine the audio adjustment based on a most recent audio setting, e.g., initial set of values in look up table, when a connection (e.g., wireless connection) to the speakers is established within a time threshold, e.g., before being adapted to specific user preferences over time. See Mahowald, para. 0041, “the system may use a look-up table to determine the desired sound level based on the current sound level and the measured ambient sound level. Such a look-up table may be populated with an initial set of suggested values that are then adapted to specific user preferences over time based on learned behavior”.
Regarding claim 11, the processor is to further determine the audio adjustment (e.g., volume adjustment) based on a user audio preference. See Mahowald, para. 0042, regarding “if the system lowers the volume but detects that shortly afterwards the user raises the volume again, the system can in response lower the volume less during the next downward volume adjustment, … Hence, the system can interpret from user feedback whether automatic volume adjustments are erroneous and/or incorrect in magnitude, and compensate by adjusting the values in the look-up table”. See also, Mahowald, fig. 4.
Regarding claim 12, the processor is to determine a change in the ambient sound level and is to determine a new audio adjustment when the change is determined. See Mahowald, para. 0030 and fig. 2, regarding “the system checks whether the audio output is suitable given the ambient sound level (operation 210), and if not, adjusts the audio output adaptively based on the ambient sound level (operation 220)”.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahowald (US 2009/0022329), considered with Satongar et al. (US 2020/0084560), and in further view of Angeloff et al. (US 2011/0069841).
Mahowald discloses a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium comprising instructions (see para. 0027) when executed cause a processor to: connect to an audio output device 104 (e.g., left and right speakers); monitor an ambient sound level (see fig. 2, step 200); use a user audio preference and the ambient sound level to determine an audio (e.g., volume) adjustment; adjust a volume of an audio output device 104 (left and right speakers) based on the determined audio adjustment; and play audio on the audio output device 104 (left and right speakers). See para. 0042 and fig. 4, regarding “if the system lowers the volume [in response to a sensed ambient sound level] but detects that shortly afterwards the user raises the volume again, the system can in response lower the volume less during the next downward volume adjustment, … Hence, the system can interpret from user feedback whether automatic volume adjustments are erroneous and/or incorrect in magnitude, and compensate by adjusting the values in the look-up table”. Mahowald discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach either: that the audio output device 104 (left and right speakers) are connected wirelessly; or that the processor is to determine a position of a user relative to the audio output device and is to further use the position in determining the audio (e.g., volume) adjustment.
Satongar discloses a source electronic device 104 (e.g., laptop computer) which “may be communicatively coupled via wired or wireless communication links to the left and right speakers” 108, 106, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of allowing the user to connect to the left speaker 108 and the right speaker 106 without cumbersome wires (see fig. 1, and para. 0019). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mahowald, in view of Satongar, such that the connection to the audio output device 104 (left and right speakers) is a wireless connection. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of allowing the user to wirelessly connect to a left speaker and a right speaker without cumbersome wires.
Angeloff discloses a method of determining a position of a user relative to an audio output device and based on the position of the user, regulating sound emitted from the audio output device, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of achieving a desired sound balance perceived by the user (see para. 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Mahowald, in view of Angeloff, such that the processor is to determine a position of a user relative to the audio output device and is to further use the position in determining the audio (e.g., volume) adjustment. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of achieving a desired sound balance perceived by the user.
Regarding claim 15, the processor is to learn a new user audio preference when a new audio output device (e.g., new wireless speakers, headphones) is connected. See Mahowald, para. 0047, regarding “the system may vary its behavior depending on the environment, the audio output device, and the given application. For instance, the system might detect when headphones are being used, and, because ambient noise is not as noticeable to a user with headphones, adjust accordingly… [T]he system might follow the assumption that ambient sound levels can still interfere with headphone listening …, and compensate by using a higher S/N target”. Note: the processor will then learn a new user audio preference at fig. 4, step 430, for example.
Claims 1, 3, 16, and 17 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 4-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection regarding Satongar et al. as necessitated by amendment.
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 PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
January 9, 2026