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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheen: 20170075645 hereinafter She further in view of Shih: 20180039474 hereinafter Shi; and further in view of Chen: 20150117671.
Regarding claim 1
She teaches:
A computing device (She: Fig 2, 3: such as playback device 200, controller 300) comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor (She: Fig 2, 3: such as memory storing coded instructions operative of a processor on a playback device, controller therefor, etc.) such that the computing device is configured to:
receive a first user input indicating a command to initiate audio calibration of a playback device (She: ¶ 78, 107-109, 115; Fig 6, 7: “a user may access a controller interface for the playback device to initiate calibration of the playback device,” such as a calibration interface, such as by instructing a base device, to enter a calibration function);
determine that a first calibration deferment option and a second calibration option are available for calibrating the playback device (She: ¶ 169, etc.; Fig 8A, etc.: system performs runtime hardware queries suitable to determine availability of a particular control or function and display same only upon determination of availability; in this case the display of the figure 8A user interface sufficiently determines the availability of a first “not now” type cancellation function and the determination of availability of the second option is presumed to enable selection upon the “begin tuning” user interface element to engage a second calibration option discussed infra such as subsequent to determinations of availability of the components of the operation),
wherein the second calibration option corresponds to calibration actions that utilize at least one microphone of the computing device; (She: ¶ 44, 111; Fig 8A, etc.: system uses the computing device microphone to receive calibration sounds emitted by the playback device);
based on receiving the first user input (She: ¶ 169, etc.; Fig 8A, etc.: such as to invoke the user interface (UI) of the figure) and determining that the second calibration option and the deferment of calibration option are available for calibrating the playback device (She: ¶ 169, etc.; Fig 8A, etc.: such as by displaying the deferment option when the UI screen is invoked and the “Begin Tuning,” option when the system has determined availability of the components of the operation),
present, via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the computing device, an indication of a the computing device first calibration deferment option and an indication of the second calibration option (She: Fig 8A);
receive a second user input indicating a selection of the second calibration option (She: ¶ 61, 62, 109, 126; Fig 7, 8A: such as to perform calibration now, based on the controller, computing, etc. device microphone);
based on the received second user input, cause the playback device to perform one or more calibration actions according to the second calibration option (She: ¶ 61, 62, 109, 126; Fig 7: subsequent to initiation the calibration method operates in concert with a microphone of a controller device such as that depicted to detect calibration sounds; said calibration sounds emitted by devices of the system);
after the playback device performs the one or more calibration actions according to the second calibration option, receive an indication from the playback device that the playback device has completed the one or more calibration actions according to the second calibration option (She: Fig 28-30: such as the completion messages depicted in the figures); and
present, via the GUI of the computing device, an indication that the playback device has completed the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option (id.).
She strongly suggests the determination of availability of the first calibration option as recited (She: ¶ 169, etc.; Fig 8A, etc.: system performs runtime hardware queries suitable to determine availability of a particular control or function and display same only upon determination of availability)
wherein the first calibration option corresponds to calibration actions that utilize at least one microphone of the playback device (She: ¶ 141, 168: She countenances calibration options based on recording such as by a microphone of the playback device itself; calibration sounds detected by another device “or the playback device itself,” such as using a microphone connected or assigned to the playback device to “ facilitate recording of the emitted calibration sounds,” however in She the calibration option initiated when “Begin Tuning,” is determined available and subsequently invoked is a computing device based calibration option). That is She mentions both a first and second arrangement of components and capabilities but She does not further discuss the dynamics of the recited a first calibration process nor the presentation of an additional option upon the user interface in this regard.
In a related field of endeavor Shi teaches a system and method for calibrating a playback device comprising initiating an audio calibration of a playback device (Shi: ¶ 98, 99; Fig 2, 8such as by reading of coded instructions for the figure 8 process from memory of a playback device of the system and instantiation of same upon a processor(s), such as that of the playback device) thereby configure the playback device and/or any other devices of the system to:
determine the availability of particular resources, hardware, etc. in the system necessary for calibration (Shi: ¶ 42, 123: such as determining if a playback device comprises a microphone; determining of sufficient power upon components for conducting the calibration procedure(s) upon devices of the system; as such Shi establishes that a playback device mic is extant, thus available at runtime and prior to conducting calibration);
wherein a first calibration option corresponds to calibration actions that utilize at least one microphone of the playback device (Shi: ¶ 27; 42, 99, 121-123; Fig 2, 7, 8: a playback device of the system operates to output and receive, record, etc. calibration audio such as through a microphone integral, attached, or assigned to the playback device),
and wherein the second calibration option corresponds to calibration actions that utilize at least one microphone of the computing device (Shi: ¶ 24, 55; Fig 3, 7, 8: a computing device of the system operative at a different location than the playback device operates via its microphone to acquire the calibration signal output by the playback device);
such that based on receiving the first user input and determining that the first calibration option and the second calibration option are available for calibrating the playback device (Shi: ¶ 122, 123; Fig 2, 3, 6-8: system comprises plurality of options for calibration such as by using a microphone of the playback device, microphone of the computing device, and/or a standalone microphone such as by determination of availability, allocation, etc. such as at runtime and prior to calibration instantiation); and
present an indication that the playback device has completed the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option (Shi: ¶ 105: such as by updating a state variable upon a controller or other device based on determination of calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the first playback device based calibration mode of Shih to adapt the control device driven workflow of She by configuring the playback device to record the calibration sound with the microphone integrated therein and compute an estimated frequency response thereon; such that the calibration option that She contemplates but does not develop is fully realized as an alternative to the She taught computing device driven workflow and for at least the purpose of providing an alternate mode of calibration which does not require the user to deploy the computing device to various locations around the room; as both She and Shi share assignees and describe various functionality of the Sonos system one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
She in view of Shi does not explicitly teach the system, method, etc. operable for detection of available microphones as a pre-requisite to presenting user selectable calibration options, nor the presentation of the calibration options on a UI for user selection therebetween.
In a related field of endeavor Che teaches a system and method for calibrating multiple microphones (Che: Abstract; ¶ 9, 10) operative to determine that microphone based calibration options are available (Che: ¶ 9-11, 18; Fig 2A: system detects presence of available microphones prior to proceeding to calibration steps); presenting via a UI indications of at least two calibration options for user selection (Che: ¶ 9-11, 18, 36, 40; Fig 4: figure shows the presentation of two selectable calibration options populated based on detection of available microphones in a manner sufficient to expose calibration options as selectable items on a UI; the semantic content of the options is not relied upon); and receiving a user input for selection of one of the presented calibration options (Che: 16, 17: such as for initiation of a calibration procedure based on user selection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the microphone availability detection routine and multi-option calibration selection UI of Chen to adapt the calibration workflow of She in view of Shi by configuring the control device thereof, such as on receipt of a Begin Tuning type input (She: ¶ 109) to: detect whether an optional playback device microphone (Shi: ¶ 42) and a control device microphone (Shi: ¶ 55) are available and if so to render both of the recited calibration options as discrete selectable indicia as taught or suggested by Che such that presentation thereof is determined at runtime based on the availability determinations taught or suggested by Che and in a manner consistent with the display logic of She in view of Shi for at least the purpose of exposing the two alternative microphone source calibration modes to user control; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 2, wherein: the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the at least one microphone of the playback device is enabled; and the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device based on determining that the at least one microphone of the playback device is enabled (She: 134, 169, etc. Fig 8A: determines the availability of the control device microphone based alignment procedure availability, such as the “Begin Tuning,” option when the system has determined availability of the components of the operation); (Shi: ¶ 34, 42, 93, 105, etc.: system detects the presence and use conditions as state variables of the playback device microphone based alignment procedure wherein the state variables convey configuration and availability data); (Che: ¶ 11, 18 40, etc.: system determines runtime availability of microphones as enabled, active, etc. said check resulting in display of user selectable calibration options). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 3, wherein the playback device is a first playback device, the first playback device is part of a bonded zone comprising the first playback device and a second playback device (She: ¶ 69, 74: system determines state variables for a plurality of playback devices which describe the configurations, groupings, and audio sources associated with each/any playback device in the system; the groupings including bonded groupings); (Shi: ¶ 34, 43, 47, 104, 105; etc.: Shi discusses bonded zones similarly) the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that at least one microphone of the second playback device is enabled; and the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the first playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the first playback device further based on determining that the at least one microphone of the second playback device is enabled (Shi: ¶ 34, 43, 47, 104, 105; etc.: system maintains state variables related to availability, bonding status, readiness, etc.); (Che: ¶ 11, 18, etc.: system detects available microphones). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein: the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the at least one microphone of the computing device is qualified to capture audio content according to the second calibration option; and the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the second calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the second calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device based on determining that the at least one microphone of the computing device is qualified to capture audio content according to the second calibration option (She: ¶ 125-139: system assesses the fitness of use based on particular positions and dispositions of a microphone); (Shi: ¶ 24, 55, etc.: system determines availability of microphones usable to record calibration signals); (Che: ¶ 11, 20-24, 38; Figs 2, 3: system determines availability of microphones, activates same and assesses overall suitability’s thereof). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to, prior to presenting the indication of the first calibration option: determine that the playback device is currently not configured to perform the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option; and based on determining that the playback device is currently not configured to perform the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option, present, via the GUI of the computing device, a set of instructions that direct a user to configure the playback device to perform the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option (She: ¶ 51, 169, etc.: controller may not present an option to allow initiation of calibration; such as resulting from a preparation phase determining the availability of components of the tuning operation and resulting in an active and clickable indica to initiate calibration); (Shi: ¶ 42, 93, 105: system determines presence and operability of microphones of the system including those integrated within playback devices); (Che: ¶ 16, 17: system flows through readiness steps of calibration operations resulting in allowing a user to select calibration using microphones of the system such as upon a UI). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
She in view of She2 teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 6, wherein the set of instructions comprise instructions for enabling the at least one microphone of the controller device and/or playback device, and wherein the computing device further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine, after presenting the set of instructions, that the at least one microphone of the playback device is enabled; and the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the first calibration option is available for calibrating the playback device based on determining, after presenting the set of instructions, that the at least one microphone of the playback device is enabled (She: ¶ 125-139, 168; Fig 8A: system provides instructions to grant microphone access, determine, position, disposition, etc. thereof in a manner suitable to determine readiness and allow a calibration procedure to be initiated); (Shi: ¶ 34, 42, 93: system confirms availability, readiness, etc. of microphones of the system); (Che: ¶ 16-18: system detects, activates and subsequently initiates capture of alignment tones using microphones of the system). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more calibration actions according to the first calibration option comprise:
playing back calibration audio content; while playing back the calibration audio content, recording, via the at least one microphone of the playback device, a portion of the calibration audio content (She: ¶ 158, 165, 181, etc.: system operates to playback and record a calibration signal, as digital audio proceeds by a series of samples each sample is considered a portion of the audio);
based on the recorded portion of the calibration audio content, determining spectral data corresponding to an environment in which the playback device is located (She: ¶ 158, 165, 181, etc.: system analyzes the recorded calibration sounds to determine acoustic characteristics of the environment);
based at least on the spectral data corresponding to the environment, determining calibration data for use by the playback device when playing back audio content (She: ¶ 158, 165, 181, etc.: system analyzes the recorded calibration sounds to generate a calibration profile bearing acoustic characteristics of the environment); and
applying the determined calibration data (She: ¶ 158, 165, 181, etc.: such as to adjust the devices of the system to achieve a desired equalization); (please see also Shi: ¶ 26, 93, 110, 111, 123-142, 147: the system records calibration tones using a microphone(s) integral to a playback device(s) to record calibration tones and produce calibration data for one or more playback devices based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 9, 17—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 11, 19, 22—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 12, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 13, 21—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 23
She in view of Shi in view of Che teaches or suggests:
The computing device of claim 5, wherein: the computing device is installed with a given version of a media playback system controller application; and the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the at least one microphone of the computing device is qualified to capture audio content according to the second calibration option comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing device is configured to determine that the at least one microphone of the computing device is qualified to capture audio content according to the second calibration option based on the given version of the media playback system controller application (She: ¶ 82, 83, 134: devices of the system comprise installed software such that the control device may determine model specific data to determine the overall calibration such as based on microphone attributes); (Shi: ¶ 54, 56, 82: system confirms overall architecture of the setup including type of communication therebetween); (Che: ¶ 16, 17, 27: system evaluates microphone parameters under control of an application). It is reasonable to assume that regardless of distinction of “version,” upon the controller device the system operates in concert with said version to perform. The specification merely discuss the presence of different calibration parameters based on particular controller versions and does not discuss method steps by which versions are determined and particular processing is determined, qualified, etc. Examiner takes official notice that the determination of versions of operating software among devices of an interconnected system was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of determining compatibility of each/any of the devices in the system to perform particular commands. The claim is thus considered obvious over She as modified by Shi, and Che as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the well-known subject matter to the further teachings of She, Shi, and/or Che to the modified device of She, Shi and Che; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with amended claims, see Remarks and Claims, filed 5/21/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 over Sheen in view of Sheen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sheen, Shih, and Chen.
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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights