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.
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 1, 3, 7-8, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (US 2024/0073978 A1) in view of Girardier et al. (US 11,102,565 B1, hereinafter Girardier).
Regarding claim 1, Suo discloses an audio communication method having two-way high quality audio transmission mechanism as shown in figure 8, comprising: performing communication between an audio communication apparatus (figure 8, first terminal device) and an external audio communication apparatus (figure 8, second terminal) such that the audio communication apparatus establishes an audio link with the external audio communication apparatus (figure 8, S801 and [0124]-[0127], a user can use mobile phone to answer a call or listen to music by using Bluetooth headset that has established a Bluetooth connection); performing an ability negotiation process by the audio communication apparatus to determine that the external audio communication apparatus supports asynchronous connection-oriented link (ACL) technology ([0128]-[0129], mobile phone may receive a paging message, read as negotiation process to determine that the external audio communication apparatus support ACL, from the Bluetooth headset for establishing a Bluetooth ACL with the mobile phone after enabling Bluetooth); performing a coding negotiation process by the audio communication apparatus to negotiate an audio encoding and decoding parameter supported by the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus ([0063], host module may encode the audio data in the original format into a format supported by Bluetooth after a Bluetooth connection is established); and performing a two-way audio transmission based on the ACL technology with the external audio communication apparatus according to the audio encoding and decoding parameter ([0063], the control module sends the audio data in the Bluetooth format to the terminal device B). Suo differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the steps of performing an audio delay negotiation process by the audio communication apparatus to provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio data delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter; and performing a two-way audio transmission based on the ACL technology with the external audio communication apparatus according to the audio encoding and decoding parameter and the actual audio data delay parameter by the audio communication apparatus. However, pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Girardier teaches performing an audio delay negotiation process by the audio communication apparatus to provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio data delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter (figure 10 and col. 16 lines 1-55, each hearable device can be configured for determining a value of its local clock for a synchronized rendering of its associated channel of the audio signal such that it allows compensating the time interval between two isochronous link); and performing a two-way audio transmission based on the ACL technology with the external audio communication apparatus according to the audio encoding and decoding parameter and the actual audio data delay parameter by the audio communication apparatus (col. 8 line 64 through col. 9 line 3 and col. 17 lines 23-35, communicating audio and voice signals between computing device and two hearable device with a specific uplink/downlink codec and a same algorithmic delay) to ensure a latency compliant in a wireless system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suo in having the steps of performing an audio delay negotiation process by the audio communication apparatus to provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio data delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter; and performing a two-way audio transmission based on the ACL technology with the external audio communication apparatus according to the audio encoding and decoding parameter and the actual audio data delay parameter by the audio communication apparatus, as per teaching of Girardier, in order to ensure a latency compliant in a wireless system.
Regarding claim 3, Suo does not specifically teach the audio encoding and decoding parameter comprising an encoding and decoding parameter related to an encoding and decoding algorithm, and the encoding and decoding algorithm includes one of SBC, LC3 and AAC encoding technologies. However, Girardier et al. teaches wherein the audio encoding and decoding parameter comprises an encoding and decoding parameter related to an encoding and decoding algorithm, and the encoding and decoding algorithm includes one of SBC, LC3 and AAC encoding technologies (Col. 8 Line 16-21, the audio codecs used for the bidirectional Bluetooth links are identical so as to avoid having different audio qualities for the earbuds. For instance, the standard mandatory SBC codec may be used for each of the streams BLNK1 and BLNK2. As an alternative, other codecs comprise Opus, LC3, LDAC, apt-X or AAC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suo in having the audio encoding and decoding parameter comprising an encoding and decoding parameter related to an encoding and decoding algorithm, and the encoding and decoding algorithm includes one of SBC, LC3 and AAC encoding technologies, as per teaching of Girardier, in order to enhance compatibility.
Regarding claim 7, Suo teaches that the two-way audio transmission is a two-way voice transmission ([129], mobile phone may receive a paging message from Bluetooth headset to establish a Bluetooth link for two-way communication).
Regarding claim 8, Suo discloses an audio communication apparatus having two-way high quality audio transmission mechanism as shown in figure 4, comprising: a communication circuit (figure 4, 100); and a processing circuit (figure 4, 110) configured to execute an audio communication method similar to claim 1. Thus, claim 8 are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 2, 6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (US 2024/0073978 A1) in view of Girardier et al. (US 11,102,565 B1, hereinafter Girardier) as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0396849 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Suo and Girardier differs from the claimed invention in not teaching a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus serves as an initiating terminal of the establishment of the audio link. However, Lee discloses wherein a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus serves as an initiating terminal of the establishment of the audio link ([0296], the master device and the slave device discovering each other and forming a connection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Suo and Girardier wherein a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus serves as an initiating terminal of the establishment of the audio link ([0296, the master device and the slave device discovering each other and forming a connection), as per the teaching of Lee, in order to enhance efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suo and Lee differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching when the external audio communication apparatus is determined to not support the ACL technology in the ability negotiation process, the external audio communication apparatus is determined to support a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link technology or an extended synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) link technology. However, Girardier discloses when the external audio communication apparatus is determined to not support the ACL technology in the ability negotiation process, the external audio communication apparatus is determined to support a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link technology or an extended synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) link technology ([0276], master device may exchange data packet with all slave devices per slot in a non-reserved slot for the SCO logical transport). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Suo and Lee such that when the external audio communication apparatus is determined to not support the ACL technology in the ability negotiation process, the external audio communication apparatus is determined to support a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link technology or an extended synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) link technology, as per teaching of Girardier, in order to enhance efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (US 2024/0073978 A1) in view of Girardier et al. (US 11,102,565 B1, hereinafter Girardier) as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Linde et al. (US 9,712,266 B2, hereinafter Linde).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suo and Girardier differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that each of the first audio data delay parameter and the second audio data delay parameter includes a minimum coding data unit size, a packet size, a data transmission interval, a flush timeout parameter, a preferential packet type or a combination thereof. However, Linde teaches the audio communication method of claim 1, wherein each of the first audio data delay parameter and the second audio data delay parameter includes a minimum coding data unit size, a packet size, a data transmission interval, a flush timeout parameter, a preferential packet type or a combination thereof (col. 1 Line 46, a BLE capable master device and a BLE capable slave device negotiating the various parameters, e.g., codec to be used, device types, stream directionality, e.g., input/output/bidirectional, timing/delay parameters, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Suo and Girardier such that the first audio data delay parameter and the second audio data delay parameter include a minimum coding data unit size, a packet size, a data transmission interval, a flush timeout parameter, a preferential packet type or a combination thereof, as per teaching of Linde, in order to enhance efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (US 2024/0073978 A1) in view of Girardier et al. (US 11,102,565 B1, hereinafter Girardier) as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Lipasti et al. (US 2006/0089119 A1, hereinafter Lipasti).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suo and Girardier differs from the claimed invention in not teaching when a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus does not transmit data in the two-way audio transmission, the first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus transmits a poll packet or a null packet to a second one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus. However, Lipasti discloses when a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus does not transmit data in the two-way audio transmission, the first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus transmits a poll packet or a null packet to a second one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus ([0006], when the master has data available for a particular slave and it wants to give that slave an opportunity to transmit, the master sends a data packet to the slave, which responds with a data packet if available. Otherwise, it responds with a NULL packet. An explicit poll takes place when a master has no data available for a particular slave while the master wants to give that slave an opportunity to transmit. In this case the master sends a packet with no payload, aka a POLL packet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Suo and Girardier such that when a first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus does not transmit data in the two-way audio transmission, the first one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus transmits a poll packet or a null packet to a second one of the audio communication apparatus and the external audio communication apparatus, as per teaching of Lipasti, in order to maintain a connnection.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the cited reference Girardier (US11102565 B1) fails to teach the feature of “audio delay negotiation process” of the present application, which is the feature of the audio delay negotiation process is to “provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter” is not taught nor suggested by Suo, and/or Girardier. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted Girardier teaches to provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter.
[Column 14, Line 1-15] of Girardier teaches that the hearable devices HE1+2 and controller CMP are linked through Bluetooth communication links so that they can transmit data to each other.
[Column 16, Line 16-31] of Girardier teaches that the hearable devices HE1+2 and controller CMP operate on a shared clock value. HE1 and HE2’s clocks are synchronized to CMP’s clock CLK.
[Column 13, Line 40-43] of Girardier teaches that clock values are similar to delay parameters in that they control (may delay) when a device sends the audio through scheduling.
[Column 15, Line 35 to Line 48] of Girardier discloses that the controller receives reference timing from a host (hearable device) and reads a first value T1 of the shared clock value between the devices. Then it sends the reference timing and T1 back to the host (hearable device). The controller only obtains T1 after receiving a reference timing from a host (hearable device), thus T1 can be considered a first delay parameter provided from hearable device to controller CMP.
The host receives the reference timing from the controller and derives a second value T2 of the shared clock. T2 can be considered a second delay parameter provided from the controller to the host, because it is only obtained after receiving reference timing from the controller.
The host then takes both T1 and T2 in order to recompute a value of CMP’s reference clock CLK by taking the difference between the two clock values (T2-T1). The recomputed value of CMP’s CLK can be considered an actual delay parameter that is derived from the first two audio delay parameters T1 and T2 that were sent between the devices HE1+2 and CMP.
Thus, Girardier teaches to provide a first audio data delay parameter to the external audio communication apparatus and retrieve a second audio delay parameter from the external audio communication apparatus to further determine an actual audio data delay parameter.
Applicant argues that Girardier does not teach two-way transmission signals between any two devices that are used to determine / calibrate a delay for the devices HE1, HE2 and CMP.
Examiner maintains that Girardier teaches two-way transmission signals between any two devices that are used to determine / calibrate a delay for the devices HE1, HE2 and CMP.
[Column 16, Line 10 to Line 24] of Girardier teach the sending of both uplink and downlink packets between HE1/2 and CMP, indicating two-way, or bidirectional transmissions between two devices. [Column 16, Line 25 to Line 39] of Girardier further teaches that these uplink and downlink packets are used to derive a final delay parameter between isochronous links BLNK1 and BLNK2, in order to achieve audio synchronization of the two hearable devices.
Thus, Girardier teaches two-way transmissions between two devices for the purpose of determining a delay.
Applicant argues that Girardier does not teach that the delay parameter itself is transmitted in each of the first audio delay parameter and the second audio delay parameter.
Examiner maintains that the delay parameter itself is transmitted in each of the first audio delay parameters and the second audio delay parameter.
[Column 13, Line 40-43] of Girardier teaches that clock values are similar to delay parameters in that they control (may delay) when a device sends the audio through scheduling.
[Column 15, Line 35 to Line 48] of Girardier discloses that the controller receives reference timing from a host (hearable device) and reads a first value T1 of the shared clock value between the devices. Then it sends the reference timing and T1 back to the host (hearable device). The controller only obtains T1 after receiving a reference timing from a host (hearable device), thus T1 can be considered a first delay parameter provided from hearable device to controller CMP.
The host receives the reference timing from the controller and derives a second value T2 of the shared clock. T2 can be considered a second delay parameter provided from the controller to the host, because it is only obtained after receiving reference timing from the controller.
Thus, Girardier teaches that the delay parameter itself is transmitted in each of the first audio delay parameter and the second audio delay parameter.
Applicant argues that Girardier does not teach the object of the present application, which is to accomplish minimum latency between the audio communication apparatus and external communication apparatus.
Examiner maintains that Girardier teaches the object of the present application, which is to accomplish minimum latency between the audio communication apparatus and external communication apparatus.
[Column 14, Line 1 to 9] teaches that isochronous links (as mentioned in [Column 16, 25-31] of Girardier) that are used to transmit audio signals between hearable devices HE1, HE2 with external apparatus CMP are used to render the audio signals with low latency.
Thus, Girardier teaches the object of the present application, which is to accomplish minimum latency between the audio communication apparatus and external communication apparatus.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights