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 § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Suggest changing the dependence of claim 5 to claim 2 to fix the problem.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karacal et al. (US 20180353856 A1) in view of Yu (US 20240288625 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Karacal teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1: gaming audio controller 100) configured to deliver a multi-component audio signal from a computer to a headset (Fig. 5: Gaming audio controller 100 connected with Headset and Game console/Computer delivering game audios and chat audio and para [0024]), the apparatus comprising:
a volume controller for controlling a volume level of the multi-component audio signal (Fig. 1: Master volume control input 102 and para [0025]); and
a mixer for controlling a relative level of component of the multi-component audio signal (Fig. 1: Game/chat audio control input 104 and para [0025]).
Karacal does not teach the apparatus including a headset for storing the headset when not in use.
Yu teaches a headset stand (Fig. 1-2: Headset stand 10) comprising:
a headset hanging structure (Fig. 1-2: support frame 300 and suspension portion 200 for storing the headset when not in use); and
a base (Fig. 1: base 100 houses circuit module 700).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Karacal’s apparatus to include Yu’s headset hanging structure. The motivation is to provide user with an integrated gaming audio controller and headset storing structure for the benefit of more organizing user’s gaming space as well as saving user’s gaming space.
Regarding claim 3: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the volume controller is a rotatable knob (Karacal’s Fig. 1: Master volume control input knob 102).
Regarding claim 4: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the mixer is a slider (Karacal’s Fig. 1: Game/chat audio control input 104 and para [0025]: Game/chat audio control input 104 can be a slider).
Regarding claim 6: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the mixer is operable to ratiometrically change a game sounds component and a chat component (Karacal’s Fig. 1: Game/chat audio control input 104 and para [0025]).
Regarding claim 9: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the volume controller is operable to control both a game sounds component and a chat component (Karacal’s Fig. 1: Game/chat audio control input 104 and para [0025]).
Regarding claim 10: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the computer is a gaming personal computer (Karacal’s para [0024]).
Regarding claim 11: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, wherein the mixer is operable to control a volume ratio of two audio components of the multi-component audio signal (Karacal’s Fig. 1: Game/chat audio control input 104 and para [0025]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karacal et al. (US 20180353856 A1) in view of Yu (US 20240288625 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mossoba et al. (US 20230299595 A1).
Regarding claim 5 : Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1, further comprising a sensor for detecting the coupling and decoupling of the headset from the headset stand whereby upon decoupling (Yu’s Fig. 7: Sensor 760 and para [0056]).
Karacal in view of Yu does not teach the sensor is a weight sensor.
Mossoba teaches a concept of using a weight sensor to detect the presence of an object (Mossoba’s para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Karacal in view of Yu, and further in view of Mossoba to have a weight sensor to detect the coupling and decoupling of the headset from the headset stand. The motivation is to provide a common choice of using weight sensor for detecting the coupling and decoupling of the headset from the headset stand.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karacal et al. (US 20180353856 A1) in view of Yu (US 20240288625 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Karacal in view of Yu teaches the headset stand of claim 1 wherein the mixer is operable to vary (e.g., balance) how much game audio and how much chat audio the user will hear; the more game audio is desired; the less chat audio will be heard and vice-versa (para [0025]).
Karacal in view of Yu does not explicitly teach the mixer is operable to change a game sounds component only and to change a chat component only.
However, it is well-known in the art that mixing balance between two audio signals can be desired in any mixing ratio which includes 100% of one audio signal and 0% of the other audio signal vice-versa (Official Notice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Karacal in view of Yu, and further in view of Official Notice to have the ratio of mixing such as all in one signal and zero in the other signal. The motivation is providing user with an option to hear only chat or game sounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM (EST).
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, Vivian Chin 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695