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
The examiner has further consider the applicant’s amended claim(s) which refer to the “second computing device , as being a source of the audio data”, upon additional analysis, such aspect has been rejected over new ground of rejection(s).
Wilberding et al. (US 12,210,797 B2) overall disclose of various playback devices in wireless communication and wherein one of the playback device may be the source of the audio data, when relaying and communicating with other playback device.
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) 1-5, 9-13 , 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millington et al. (US 12,096, 187 B2) and Wilberding et al. (US 12,210,797 B2).
Claim 1, Millington et al. disclose of a first computing device for processing audio, the first computing device comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (fig.1 (102); fig.4); and configured to: receive audio data from a second computing device via a communications protocol over a wireless channel (fig.4 (402); fig.1 (102/120);fig.6 (602); col.10 line 50-55; col.11 line 25-45/the playback device at one zone (102) may receive audio from other zone (120) wirelessly).
Although, Millington et al. never specify of the second device being a source of audio data. But, Wilberding et al. disclose of similar concept regarding a processor to receive audio data from another device being a source of audio data (fig.1c (110a); fig.1I; col.11 line 60-65; col.29 line 1-5/the playback device may act as a source of audio data from which other device may receive the audio). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept related to processor to receive audio data from another device being a source of audio data so as to relay and playback of audio data via multiple devices.
Thus, the prior art further disclose of output, to a first audio device associated with the first computing device, the audio data for playing the audio data (Mill-fig.1 (102); col.8 line 15-17/the zone may have particular output device to output the audio), wherein the audio data is played simultaneously on the first audio device associated with the first computing device and on a second audio device associated with the second computing device (Mill-fig.6 (602/630); col.9 line 40-50/the synchronous seamless between each computing device and corresponding audio device).
2. The first computing device of claim 1, wherein the first computing device is connected to the second computing device via the communications protocol over the wireless channel (col.11 line 25-45).
3. The first computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output the audio data to the first audio device via one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (col.8 line 15-17).
4. The first computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output the audio data to the first audio device via the communications protocol over the wireless channel (col.8 line 15-17).
5. The first computing device of claim 1, wherein the first audio device and the second audio device are each one of a wired headset or wireless earbuds (col.8 line 15-17).
Claim 9, Millington et al. disclose of a method for processing audio at a first computing device, the method comprising: receiving, by the first computing device, audio data from a second computing device via a communications protocol over a wireless channel (fig.4 (402); fig.1 (102/120);fig.6 (602); col.10 line 50-55; col.11 line 25-45/the playback device at one zone (102) may receive audio from other zone (120) wirelessly).
Although, Millington et al. never specify of the audio data being received from a second device being a source of audio data. But, Wilberding et al. disclose of similar concept regarding receiving audio data from another device being a source of audio data (fig.1c (110a); fig.1I; col.11 line 60-65; col.29 line 1-5/the playback device may act as a source of audio data from which other device may receive the audio). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept related to receiving audio data from another device being a source of audio data so as to relay and playback of audio data via multiple devices.
Millington et al. further disclose of outputting, by the first computing device to a first audio device associated with the first computing device, the audio data for playing the audio data (Mill-fig.1 (102); col.8 line 15-17/the zone may have particular output device to output the audio), wherein the audio data is played simultaneously on the first audio device associated with the first computing device and on a second audio device associated with the second computing device (Mill-fig.6 (602/630); col.9 line 40-50/the synchronous seamless between each computing device and corresponding audio device).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first computing device is connected to the second computing device via the communications protocol over the wireless channel (col.11 line 25-45).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the audio data is output from the first computing device to the first audio device via one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (col.8 line 15-17).
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the audio data is transmitted from the first computing device to the first audio device via the communications protocol over the wireless channel (col.8 line 15-17).
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the first audio device and the second audio device are each one of a wired headset or wireless earbuds (col.8 line 15-17).
Claim 17, the prior art disclose of a non-transitory computer-readable medium of a first computing device having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive audio data from a second computing device via a communications protocol over a wireless channel (fig.4 (402); fig.1 (102/120);fig.6 (602); col.10 line 50-55; col.11 line 25-45/the playback device at one zone (102) may receive audio from other zone (120) wirelessly).
Although, Millington et al. never specify of a processor to receive audio data from the second device being a source of audio data. But, Wilberding et al. disclose of similar concept regarding a processor to receive audio data from another device being a source of audio data (fig.1c (110a); fig.1I; col.11 line 60-65; col.29 line 1-5/the playback device may act as a source of audio data from which other device may receive the audio). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept related to processor to receive audio data from another device being a source of audio data so as to relay and playback of audio data via multiple devices.
Millington et al. further disclose of output, to a first audio device associated with the first computing device, the audio data for playing the audio data (Mill-fig.1 (102); col.8 line 15-17/the zone may have particular output device to output the audio), wherein the audio data is played simultaneously on the first audio device associated with the first computing device and on a second audio device associated with the second computing device (Mill-fig.6 (602/630); col.9 line 40-50/the synchronous seamless between each computing device and corresponding audio device).
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first computing device is connected to the second computing device via the communications protocol over the wireless channel (col.11 line 25-45).
. 19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to output the audio data to the first audio device via one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (col.8 line 15-17).
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first audio device and the second audio device are each one of a wired headset or wireless earbuds (col.8 line 15-17).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millington et al. (US 12,096, 187 B2) and Wilberding et al. (US 12,210,797 B2) and Bonde et al. (US 11,573,761 B1).
6. The first computing device of claim 1, However, the prior art never mentioned as wherein the first computing device is a first mobile device or a first television and the second computing device is a second mobile device or a second television.
However, Bonde et al. disclose of such similar concept related to a certain computing device being of a first mobile device or television (fig.2 (200/400); col.8 line 20-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art cold have modified the first computer device and second computing device as mentioned by specify of the device being of a first mobile device or television so as to have such source device with image capability or flexible to move around.
8. The first computing device of claim 1, However, the prior art never mentioned as wherein the wireless channel is a Bluetooth channel.
But, Bonde et al. disclose of a certain wireless channel being of a Bluetooth (col.8 line 25-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by varying the wireless connections and specifying as the wireless channel being of a Bluetooth so as to allow connectivity and exchange of data without any entanglement.
The claim(s) 14, 16 which in substance disclose of the same limitation as in claim(s) 6, 8 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millington et al. (US 12,096, 187 B2) and Wilberding et al. (US 12,210,797 B2) and Das et al. (US 9,743,367 B2).
Claim 7, the first computing device of claim 1, but the prior art never specify wherein the communications protocol is a distributed context fabriq (DCF) protocol.
However, Das et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a certain communication protocol being of a distributed context fabriq (DCF) protocol (col.1 line 10-20). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect related to protocol being of a distributed context fabriq for providing another means to exchange information between the various devices.
The claim(s) 15 which in substance disclose of the same limitation as in claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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 DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695