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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 3/20/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed recently have been fully considered and the following point were mentioned: the prior art failed to mentioned of “the wireless speakers being synchronized according to where a listener is located relative to each of the plurality of wireless speakers”, thus such mentioned argument has been further considered by the examiner.
See fig.2 (212,214,216); col.6 line 5-67/as the user move from one room to another, then the audio signals associated with the speakers are synchronized accordingly based on user’s varied locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 27-28, 31, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (2) as being anticipated by Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1).
Claim 21, Haskin et al. disclose of a system, comprising: a plurality of wireless speakers configured to be synchronized, via a wireless signal, according to where a listener is located relative to each of the plurality of wireless speakers (abstract; fig.1 (104/106); fig.2 (212-216); col.1 line 5-20; col.6 line 5-67).
23. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the wireless signal is generated by one or more of the plurality of wireless speakers (col.9 line 1-30).
24. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of wireless speakers is associated with a particular area (fig.2 (212-216); col.6 line 5-20).
27. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the listener is monitored according to a home control device (col.7 line 30-45).
28. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the system is activated by a voice command (col.7 line 20-30/the system may response to voice command).
31. (New) A system, comprising: a wireless speaker configured to synchronize, via a wireless signal, with one or more other wireless speakers (col.1 line 5-20; col.9 line 1-30).
37. (New) The system of claim 31, wherein a presence of a listener is monitored according to a home control device (col.7 line 30-45).
38. (New) The system of claim 31, wherein the system is activated by a voice command (col.7 line 20-30/the system may response to voice command).
.
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) 22, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1) and Reilly et al. (US 9,225,307 B2).
22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein a parameter of each of the plurality of wireless speakers is determined according to a movement of the listener (col.4 line 45-67& col.6 line 45-60).
However, Haskin failed to disclose of the volume of each speaker being determined accordingly. Reilly et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding volume of each speaker being determined accordingly (col.2 line 1-10; col.4 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect concerning the volume of each speaker being determined accordingly so as to implement the seamlessly audio zone configurations.
32. (New) The system of claim 31, but the art failed to mention as wherein a volume of the wireless speaker is determined by motion in a first location.
. Reilly et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding a volume of the wireless speaker is determined by motion in a first location (col.2 line 1-10; col.4 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect concerning the volume of the wireless speaker is determined by motion in a first location so as to implement the seamlessly audio zone configurations.
34. (New) The system of claim 31, although lacking regarding as wherein a volume of the wireless speaker is determined by a presence of a listener in a first location.
. Reilly et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding a volume of the wireless speaker is determined by a presence of a listener in a first location (col.2 line 1-10; col.4 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect concerning the volume of the wireless speaker is determined by a presence of a listener in a first location so as to implement the seamlessly audio zone configurations.
Claim(s) 25, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1) and Florencio et al. (US 2015/0382129 A1).
Claim 25, the system of claim 21, but the art never specify as wherein the listener is monitored according to a personal electronic device carried by the listener.
However, Florencio et al. disclose of such a listener is monitored according to a personal electronic device carried by the listener (par [22]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect concerning the listener is monitored according to a personal electronic device carried by the listener so as to dynamically drive the speaker with parameters based on user’s track locations.
The claim(s) 35 which in substance disclose of the similar claim feature as in claim(s) 25 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 29-30, 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1) and Kinghorn (US 8,311,233 B2).
29. (New) The system of claim 21, but the prior art never specify as wherein the system is operable to monitor a plurality of listeners.
However, Kinghorn disclose of the similar concept regarding a system is operable to monitor a plurality of listeners (col.8 line 20-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept concerning a system is operable to monitor a plurality of listeners so as to configured according to different users preferences.
30. (New) The system of claim 21, but the prior art lacked as wherein the system is operable to prioritize a plurality of listeners.
However, Kinghorn disclose of the similar concept regarding a system is operable to prioritize a plurality of listeners (col.8 line 20-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept concerning a system is operable to prioritize a plurality of listeners so as to configured according to different users preferences.
The claim(s) 39-40 which in substance disclose of the similar claim feature as in claim(s) 29-30 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 26; 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1) and Hernandez-Abrego et al. (US 9,250,703 B2).
26. (New) The system of claim 21, but the art never mentioned such concept regarding wherein a predicted location of the listener is determined according a schedule of the listener.
However, Hernandez disclose of such aspect concerning a predicted location of the listener is determined according a schedule of the listener (col.7 line 1-10). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such issue regarding a predicted location of the listener is determined according a schedule of the listener so as to anticipate the user’s location based on historical pattern to be used as input.
The claim(s) 36 which in substance disclose of the similar claim feature as in claim(s) 26 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US 9,866, 964 B1) and Popova (US 9,431,980 B2).
33. (New) The system of claim 32, but the art never specify the system wherein when a listener moves from the first location to a second location, the system is operable to change the volume.
However, Popova disclose of the similar system which include such a system wherein when a listener moves from the first location to a second location, the system is operable to change the volume (abstract; col.1 line 35-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such system wherein when a listener moves from the first location to a second location, the system is operable to change the volume so as to adjust the volume to desired comfort level based on user’s position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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