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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because although the overall claim(s) are directed to a statutory category being that of a “process”, however, the step(s) mentioned such as “selecting, an audio test signal stored in HATD”, is tied to a mental process, user using memory or particular pencil to determined what “audio test to select” and further the additional steps, namely “ positioning, audio DUT, in a conference room at position and height; positioning, & each (RATD) at position and height relative to DUT in plane passing through the DUT; transmitting the audio test to a RATD; receiving, the transmitted audio test; broadcasting, the received audio test signal to the audio DUT and receiving, by the audio DUT, the broadcasted acoustic audio test signal” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity consideration, steps that are routine and conventional. Therefore, the above claim(s) are ineligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 2, 6-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. (US 11, 962, 981). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) is merely a broader version of the patented claims and thus as stand would have been anticipated by the prior patented claims.
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.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2).
Claim 2, the prior art herein being Proctor jr et al. disclose of a method for testing a bi-directional audio device under test (audio DUT), the method comprising: positioning the audio DUT in a conferencing-device test room at a first position and at a first height (fig.1 (114); col.8 line 10-20/the device may be in various location in the room and include such inherent position and height according to it location); positioning each of one or more remote audio test devices (RATDs) at a respective position different from the first position, and at a respective height (fig.1 (113); col.8 line 48-67/the RATD may be situated at a certain position distinct to that of the device under test).
Nonetheless, Proctor, Jr. never limit such aspect related as wherein the remote audio test device being positioned at a respective azimuth angle relative to a forward-facing axis of the audio DUT in a substantially horizontal plane passing through the audio DUT. But, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skills in the art to have varied the positioned of the remote audio test device in relation to that of the DUT as mentioned by the art to any other desired positioned and including if desired adding the specific remote audio test device being positioned at a respective azimuth angle relative to a forward-facing axis of the audio DUT in a substantially horizontal plane passing through the audio DUT for achieving the same expected result so as to optimize the audio experience by the user based on the remote audio test device’s locations.
Proctor, Jr. et al. further disclose of selecting, by a host audio test device (HATD), an audio test signal stored in the HATD (fig.1 (112); col.9 line 60-67); transmitting, by the HATD, the audio test signal to a first RATD & receiving, by the first RATD, the transmitted audio test signal (fig.1 (113); col.8 line 40-50 & col.9 line 10-20); broadcasting, by the first RATD, the received audio test signal to the audio DUT as an acoustic audio test signal; and receiving, by the audio DUT, the broadcasted acoustic audio test signal (fig.1 (114); col.8 line 35-50).
3. (New) The method according to claim 2, further comprising: converting, by the audio DUT, the received acoustic audio test signal to an audio test data signal; and transmitting, by the audio DUT, the audio test data signal to the HATD; and receiving, by the HATD, the transmitted audio test data signal; and recording, by the HATD, the received audio test data signal (fig.1 (118); fig.9; col.9 line 60-67/the signal may be used to correlate with other audio signals).
4. (New) The method according to claim 3, further comprising: processing, by the HATD, the recorded audio test data signal received from the audio DUT; and generating one or more audio DUT audio test data reports (fig.9 (903); col.9 line 60-67).
5. (New) The method according to claim 2, wherein each of the one or more RATDs is adapted to be positioned at the same or different height as the audio DUT and positioned at the same or different distance from the audio DUT (col.8 line 48-67).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2) and Corbett et al. (US 8,126,156 B2).
6. (New) The method according to claim 2, further comprising calibrating one or more loudspeakers that are part of the one or more RATDs (col.8 line 45-67).
Although, Proctor, Jr. never specify of calibrating microphone that is part of the RATD. However, Corbett et al. disclose of the similar concept related to calibrating microphone of a device (abstract). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to calibrating microphone that is part of a device so as to compensate for sensitivity associated with the microphone and improve signal detecting in a particular environment.
Claim 7, the method according to claim 6, but the art never specify as wherein the step of calibrating comprises: calibrating the one or more loudspeakers to a Tele-conference level standard that comprises a specific sound pressure level corresponding to a typical human.
However, Corbett et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a calibrating the one or more loudspeakers to a Tele-conference level standard that comprises a specific sound pressure level corresponding to a typical human (abstract; col.2 line 1-20). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to calibrating the one or more loudspeakers to a Tele-conference level standard that comprises so as to compensate for sensitivity associated with the speaker and improve signal detecting in a conference environment.
Although, the prior art never specify of the standard comprises a specific sound pressure level corresponding to a typical human, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the standard associated with calibrating of loudspeakers by specifying such sound pressure level corresponding to a typical human for allowing the loudspeaker to output sound in range comprehensible for the user in that environment.
Similarly, the claim(s) 8 which in substance discloses the same feature to that of claim(s) 7 has been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2) and Patel (US 10,292,002 B2).
9. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of transmitting comprises: generating a uniquely addressed audio test signal for each of the one or more RATDs,and transmitting the same to the respective RATD.
But, Patel disclose of the similar concept wherein generating a uniquely addressed audio test signal for each of the one or more RATDs,and transmitting the same to the respective RATD (col.5 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the art by adding such noted aspect relate to generating a uniquely addressed audio test signal for each of the one or more RATDs,and transmitting the same to the respective RATD for allowing the device to differentiate between calibration signal emitted and transmitted by each of the speakers.
10. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting a first audio test signal track for a first group of RATDs, and selecting a second audio test signal track for a second group of RATDs.
But, Patel disclose of the similar concept wherein selecting a first audio test signal track for a first group of RATDs, and selecting a second audio test signal track for a second group of RATDs (col.5 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the art by adding such noted aspect relate to selecting a first audio test signal track for a first group of RATDs, and selecting a second audio test signal track for a second group of RATDs for allowing the device to differentiate between calibration signal emitted and transmitted by each of the speakers.
11. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the prior art never specify wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting different audio test signal tracks for different respective RATDs, such that each RATD has its own unique audio test signal track.
But, Patel disclose of the similar concept wherein selecting different audio test signal tracks for different respective RATDs, such that each RATD has its own unique audio test signal track (col.5 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the art by adding such noted aspect relate to selecting different audio test signal tracks for different respective RATDs, such that each RATD has its own unique audio test signal track for allowing the device to differentiate between calibration signal emitted and transmitted by each of the speakers.
12. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: defining different subsets of RATDs, wherein each subset of RATDs comprises at least one RATD; and selecting different audio test signal tracks for each different subset of RATDs, such that each subset of RATDs has its own unique audio test signal track.
But, Patel disclose of the similar concept wherein selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: defining different subsets of RATDs, wherein each subset of RATDs comprises at least one RATD; and selecting different audio test signal tracks for each different subset of RATDs, such that each subset of RATDs has its own unique audio test signal track (col.5 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the art by adding such noted aspect relate to selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: defining different subsets of RATDs, wherein each subset of RATDs comprises at least one RATD; and selecting different audio test signal tracks for each different subset of RATDs, such that each subset of RATDs has its own unique audio test signal track for allowing the device to differentiate between calibration signal emitted and transmitted by each of the speakers.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2) and Quan (US 10,879,864 B2).
13. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting an audio test signal that simulates a human voice.
However, Quan disclose of a similar method including selecting an audio test signal that simulates a human voice (col.24 line 50-65). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related selecting an audio test signal that simulates a human voice so analyzed the device for any defect and measuring its performance.
14. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting multiple audio test signals, each of which simulates a different human voice, with respective different frequency ranges, and respective different amplitudes.
However, Quan disclose of a similar method including selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting multiple audio test signals, each of which simulates a different human voice, with respective different frequency ranges, and respective different amplitudes (col.72 line 10-65). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related selecting an audio test signal that simulates a human voice so analyzed the various devices with particular characteristics for any defect and measuring its performance.
15. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the prior art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting an audio test signal that comprises background noise.
However, Quan disclose of a similar method including selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting an audio test signal that comprises background noise (col.72 line 10-65). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting an audio test signal that comprises background noise so analyzed the various devices with characteristics for any defect and measuring its performance.
16. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting multiple audio test signals, each of which comprises a different background noise.
However, Quan disclose of a similar method including selecting multiple audio test signals, each of which comprises a different background noise (col.72 line 10-65). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related selecting multiple audio test signals, each of which comprises a different background noise so analyzed the various devices with characteristics for any defect and measuring its performance.
17. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the art never specify as wherein the step of selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting a first set of audio test signals, each of which comprises a first set of simulated human voices; and selecting one or more other audio test signals, each of which comprises different noise signals.
However, Quan disclose of a similar method including selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting a first set of audio test signals, each of which comprises a first set of simulated human voices; and selecting one or more other audio test signals, each of which comprises different noise signals (col.24 line 50-65; col.72 line 10-65). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related selecting an audio test signal stored in the HATD comprises: selecting a first set of audio test signals, each of which comprises a first set of simulated human voices; and selecting one or more other audio test signals, each of which comprises different noise signalsso analyzed the various devices with characteristics for any defect and measuring its performance.
Claim(s) 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2) and Schobert et al. (US 2021/0306780 A1).
18. (New) The method according to claim 2, but the prior art never specify as wherein the audio DUT comprises: at least one loudspeaker adapted to broadcast acoustic audio test signals to each of the one or more RATDs; at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals from each of the one or more RATDs; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with the HATD; at least one loudspeaker, and memory, and wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute audio processing and bi- directional communication functions of the audio DUT.
But it shall be noted Schobert disclose of a similar DUT comprises: at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals from each of the one or more device; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with a device; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one microphone, and memory, and wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute audio processing and bi- directional communication functions of the audio DUT; at least one loudspeaker adapted to broadcast acoustic audio test signals to each of the one or more RATDs; transceiver to communicate with the at least one loudspeaker (fig.1 (110, 112, 114); fig.4; par [24-25, 63]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a DUT comprises: at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals from each of the one or more device; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with a device so as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between the DUT and other devices.
Although, none of the combined teaching of Proctor, Jr. et al. and Schobert as a whole, disclose of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver, but again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned of exchange and bidirectional of audio between various devices and specify of the specific of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver for achieving the same result as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between such mentioned devices.
20. (New) The method according to claim 2, wherein each of the one or more RATDs comprises: at least one loudspeaker adapted to broadcast acoustic audio test signals to the at least one audio DUT (P-fig.1 (114); col.8 line 35-50).
;
Although Proctor, Jr. et al. did not disclose the issue in regard to wherein each of the one or more RATDs comprises: at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals from the at least one audio DUT; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with the HATD and the audio DUT; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the at least one loudspeaker, at least one microphone, at least one bi-directional transceiver device, and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD.
But it shall be noted Schobert disclose of a similar device comprises: at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the at least one loudspeaker, at least one microphone, at least one bi-directional transceiver device, and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD (fig.1 (110, 112, 114); fig.4; par [24-25, 63]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to at least one microphone adapted to receive acoustic audio test signals; at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the at least one loudspeaker, at least one microphone, at least one bi-directional transceiver device, and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD so as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between the DUT and other devices.
Although, none of the combined teaching of Proctor, Jr. et al. and Schobert as a whole, disclose of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver, but again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned of exchange and bidirectional of audio between various devices and specify of the specific of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver for achieving the same result as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between such mentioned devices.
21. (New) The method according to claim 2, although, none of the mentioned wherein the HATD comprises: at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with each of the RATDs and the audio DUT; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the bi-directional transceiver device and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD.
But it shall be noted Schobert disclose of a similar device comprises: at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with each of the RATDs and the audio DUT; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the bi-directional transceiver device and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD (fig.1 (110, 112, 114); fig.4; par [24-25, 63]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related at least one bi-directional transceiver device adapted to communicate with each of the RATDs and the audio DUT; a memory; and at least one processor operatively connected to each of the bi-directional transceiver device and memory, and further wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs bi-directional communications and processing functions of the RATD so as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between the DUT and other devices.
Although, none of the combined teaching of Proctor, Jr. et al. and Schobert as a whole, disclose of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver, but again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned of exchange and bidirectional of audio between various devices and specify of the specific of the particular exchange of audio between the DUT and RATD and HATD in regard to the loudspeaker, microphone and transceiver for achieving the same result as to allow bi-directional exchange of audio data between such mentioned devices.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor, Jr. et al. (US 11,310,614 B2) and Schobert et al. (US 2021/0306780 A1) and Wilberding et al. (US 2020/0280800 A1).
Claim 19. (New) The method according to claim 18, but the prior art never mentioned as wherein the audio DUT comprises: an audio sound bar that can be used in two or more remotely located conference rooms to perform teleconferencing between the remotely located conference rooms.
However, Wilberding et al. disclose of a certain teleconference system including comprising an audio sound bar that can be used in two or more remotely located conference rooms to perform teleconferencing between the remotely located conference rooms (par [0168, 275]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept concerning the teleconference system including comprising an audio sound bar that can be used in two or more remotely located conference rooms to perform teleconferencing between the remotely located conference rooms so as to allow various listener in distinct location to communicate with one another via the sound bar.
Conclusion
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
