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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: audio calibration module in claims 1 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 16, 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 discloses “be said digital control processor” in line 3.
Claims 16, 20 and 23 disclose the term “at last”. It appears the term should read as: “at least”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is written in a manner to invoke 112(f) (e.g., “an audio calibration module is configured for receiving a frequency response curve, comparing the frequency response curve to a predetermined frequency response curve and automatically generating …”). The specification discloses that the physical structure corresponding to the claimed audio calibration module is a processor which executes a program. However, neither the specification nor the drawings provide any flow chart or algorithm to describe such a program which is executed by the processor. For the above reason, claim 1 does not meet the written description requirement for the physical structure which corresponds to the claimed audio calibration module which functions to “receiving…comparing…and automatically generating…” as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 7 has similar problem as that of independent claim 1 and thus it is rejected for the similar reason as set forth above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected for the similar reasons as their respective base claims 1 and 7 since they inherit the same problem.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claims 12-16 recite one single element (e.g. “programming”) coupled with a single function without reciting a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.
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.
Claims 1-23 are 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 1 is written in a manner to invoke 112(f) (e.g., “an audio calibration module is configured for receiving a frequency response curve, comparing the frequency response curve to a predetermined frequency response curve and automatically generating …”). The specification discloses that the physical structure corresponding to the claimed audio calibration module is a processor which executes a program. However, neither the specification nor the drawings provide any flow chart or algorithm to describe such a program which is executed by the processor. Thus this renders the corresponding physical structure unclear. For the above reason, the scope of independent claim 1 is unclear and thus considered indefinite.
Independent claim 7 has similar problem as that of independent claim 1 and thus it is rejected for the similar reason as set forth above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected for the similar reasons as their respective base claims 1 and 7 since they inherit the same problem.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the frequency response curve" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 discloses in part: “so that the output of the speaker matches the frequency response of the predetermined frequency response”. From the present claim language it is not clear how an output of a speaker matches a frequency response. Due to the lack of clarity the present claim is regarded as indefinite. It appears that the claim should read as: “so that a frequency response of the output of the speaker matches the frequency response of the predetermined frequency response”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the frequency response curve" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 discloses in which “the predetermined volume of the frequency response curve is 85 db”. However the “predetermined volume” of claim 7 is stored in said audio calibration module, and is therefore not the predetermined volume of the frequency response curve. It is not clear which frequency response curve is 85db. Due to the lack of clarity the present claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said cinema control" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “7 setting” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “7 setting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not limited to any reasonable metric in ascertaining a value of an audio signal.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the frequency response curve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the audio output" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 discloses in part: “said digital control processor generating a signal corresponding to the signal for setting the cinema controller”. From the present claim language it is not clear what signal the generated signal corresponds to in the claim. Due to the lack of clarity the present claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grimanis (US 20240323626 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Grimanis discloses a digital control processor (fig.5a,b #16/18) for use in playing an audio file by means of a cinema processor (fig.5a,b #15/19) connected to at least one speaker (fig.5a #11, fig.5b #81), said speaker generating an output in response to an audio signal from said cinema controller (Par.[0170] at step S13 an input audio signal #60 is received for output via the at least on speaker) comprising::
an audio calibration module (Par.[0177-0178] the steps of the calibration method (fig.4) of Grimanis may be performed by either the processor #16 of the smartphone device #18 or loudspeaker system controller #19; therefor either element encompasses a “audio calibration module) for receiving the frequency response curve of the output of said speaker (Par.[0165] at step S4, a local frequency response #21 or “frequency response curve” of the speaker is determined from a received recorded test signal and the audio test signal);
said audio calibration module capable of comparing said frequency response curve of said speaker to a predetermined frequency response curve (Par.[0165] at step S5, a target frequency response #22 or “predetermined frequency response” may be a stored pre-programmed frequency response) stored in said audio calibration module (Par.[0166] at step S6, a difference frequency response #23 is determined by comparing the local frequency response #21 of the speaker to the stored target frequency response #22); and
said audio calibration module automatically generating an output signal to said cinema processor that adjusts the audio output signal of the cinema controller to said speaker so that the output of the speaker matches the frequency response of the predetermined frequency response (Par.[0167-0168] an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response).
Examiner Note: The above claim language discloses wherein the audio calibration module is “capable” of performing a comparison function, and therefor does not positively recite that it is actually performing the function. Therefore the claimed “comparing” of frequency responses has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 3, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 1, in which said audio calibration module automatically compares the volume of said frequency response from said speaker to a predetermined volume and adjusts the volume of said speaker so that the volume of said speaker is the predetermined volume (Par.[0166] the comparison of frequency responses at step S6 is a comparison of volume levels at different frequencies).
With respect to claim 7, Grimanis discloses a digital control processor (fig.5a,b #16/18) for use in playing an audio file by means of a cinema processor (fig.5a,b #15/19) connected to at least one speaker (fig.5a #11, fig.5b #81), said speaker generating an output in response to an audio signal from said cinema controller (Par.[0170] at step S13 an input audio signal #60 is received for output via the at least on speaker) comprising:
an audio calibration module (Par.[0177-0178] the steps of the calibration method (fig.4) of Grimanis may be performed by either the processor #16 of the smartphone device #18 or loudspeaker system controller #19; therefor either element encompasses a “audio calibration module)for receiving the frequency response curve of the output of said speaker (Par.[0165] at step S4, a local frequency response #21 or “frequency response curve” of the speaker is determined from a received recorded test signal and the audio test signal);
said audio calibration module capable of comparing the volume of said frequency response curve of said speaker to a predetermined volume (Par.[0165] at step S5, a target frequency response #22 or “predetermined frequency response” may be a stored pre-programmed frequency response) stored in said audio calibration module (Par.[0166] at step S6, a difference frequency response #23 is determined by comparing the local frequency response #21 of the speaker to the stored target frequency response #22 wherien the comparison of frequency responses at step S6 is a comparison of volume levels at different frequencies); and
said audio calibration module automatically generating an output signal that adjusts the audio output signal of the cinema controller to said speaker so that the output of said speaker is the predetermined volume (Par.[0167-0168] an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response).
Examiner Note: The above claim language discloses wherein the audio calibration module is “capable” of performing a comparison function, and therefor does not positively recite that it is actually performing the function. Therefore the claimed “comparing” of volume has not been given patentable weight.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-9, 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimanis (US 20240323626 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 1, wherein a user may select predetermined target frequency responses (Par.[0176]), however does not discloses expressly in which the predetermined frequency response is an X curve.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses, including an X-curve response. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired frequency response set by the user, such as an X-curve response. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control an output frequency response of the system.
With respect to claim 4, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 3, wherein a user may select predetermined target frequency responses (Par.[0176]), however does not disclose expressly wherein said predetermined volume is 85db.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses, including a desired output of signals including a volume of 85db. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired volume of the output frequency response to include 85db. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control the volume of the output frequency response.
With respect to claim 8, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 7, wherein a user may select predetermined target frequency responses (Par.[0176]), however does not disclose expressly wherein said predetermined volume is 85db.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses, including a desired output of signals including a volume of 85db. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired volume of the output frequency response to include 85db. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control the volume of the output frequency response.
With respect to claim 9, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 7, in which said audio calibration module automatically compares the volume of said frequency response curve from said speaker to a predetermined volume (Par.[0167-0168] an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response) and transmits a signal to said cinema controller that adjusts the volume of the frequency response curve of said speaker (Par.[0173-0174][0177]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly that the volume of the output frequency response curve of said speaker is 85db.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses, including a desired output of signals including a volume of 85db. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired volume of the output frequency response to include 85db. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control the volume of the output frequency response.
With respect to claim 17, Grimanis discloses a method of automatically calibrating the frequency response curve and volume of the audio output of speakers (fig.5a #11, fig.5b #81) in a venue by a digital control processor (fig.5a,b #16/18) connected to a cinema processor (fig.5a,b #15/19) having a volume control (fig.4 “equalizer”) and connected to microphones (fig.5 #12) located in said venue said digital control processor having an audio calibration module (Par.[0177-0178] the steps of the calibration method (fig.4) of Grimanis may be performed by either the processor #16 of the smartphone device #18 or loudspeaker system controller #19; therefor either element encompasses a “audio calibration module) comprising the steps of:
said digital control processor causing said cinema processor to generate an audio test signal sequentially to each of said speakers (Par.[0173] a user may initialize the calibration method via smartphone device #18, where an audio test signal is emitted via the speakers);
said microphone transmitting the frequency response curve and volume output signal of said speakers to said digital control processor (Par.[0165] at step S4, a local frequency response #21 or “frequency response curve” of the speaker is determined from a received recorded test signal and the audio test signal);
said digital control processor automatically comparing the frequency curve received to a target frequency response (Par.[0166] at step S6, a difference frequency response #23 is determined by comparing the local frequency response #21 of the speaker to the stored target frequency response #22);
generating an output signal to said cinema controller, said signal adjusting the output signal of said cinema processor so that the output signal to said speaker results in the output of said speakers (Par.[0167-0168] an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response).
Grimanis discloses wherein the cinema processor #19 generates an audio test signal, however does not disclose expressly wherein the test signal is a sweep tone. Official Notice is taken that sweep tones are well-known in the art to be used an audio test signals. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a sweep tone as the audio test signal of Grimanis. The motivation for doing so would have been to test the audio system throughout an entire range of audible acoustic frequencies.
Grimanis does not disclose expressly wherein the frequency curve is compared to an X-curve and to 85dB. Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers, such as the equalizer of Grimanis, may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses at different volume levels. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow a user of Grimanis set the desired frequency response provided by the equalizer at an X-curve including a level of 85dB. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control an output frequency response of the system at their personal desired level.
With respect to claim 18, Grimanis discloses the method of claim 17 in which said digital control processor transmits a signal to said volume control (Par.[0167] as shown in figure 4, filter gain parameters are determined in step S10 and transmitted to equalizer in step S12).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly setting the volume control to 85db.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers, such as the equalizer of Grimanis, may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses at different volume levels. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow a user of Grimanis set the desired frequency response provided by the equalizer at a level of 85dB. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control an output frequency response of the system at their personal desired level.
With respect to claim 21, Grimanis discloses a method of controlling the volume setting of a cinema processor (fig.5a,b #15/19) connected to a digital control processor (fig.5a,b #16/18) comprising the steps of said digital control processor generating a signal corresponding to the signal for setting the cinema controller; and transmitting said signal to said cinema controller whereby said volume setting of said cinema controller is set to a setting ((Par.[0167-0168] as shown in figure 4, filter gain parameters are determined in step S10 and transmitted to equalizer in step S12; an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response).
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-16, 19-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimanis (US 20240323626 A1) in view of Garcia et al (US 20220295204 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 1, however does not disclose expressly having programming to be able to play a streaming audio file.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison, wherein the digital control processor has programming to be able to play a streaming audio file (Par.[0055-0061] audio files from media playback device #202 may be streaming audio files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide programming for playing streaming audio to the system of Grimanis as performed by the invention of Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to play streaming audio files.
With respect to claim 6, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 1, including a communication interface (fig.5a,b #17) and at least one microphone (fig.5a,b #12) receives the frequency response of said speaker and said frequency response is received via the communication interface be said digital control processor (Par.[0173-0174][0177]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly wherein the communication interface is a Wi-Fi receiver.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison (Par.[0055-0061]); including a Wi-Fi receiver and at least one microphone receives the frequency response of said speaker and said frequency response is received via Wi-Fi via said digital processor (Par.[0038-0039] network interface #150 may include a Wi-Fi receiver, wherein Wi-Fi receivers may receive streaming audio files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a Wi-Fi receiver as the communication interface of Grimanis, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a readily available wireless communication protocol for communication between the smartphone device #18 and loudspeaker system of Grimanis.
With respect to claim 10, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 7, however does not disclose expressly having programming to be able to play a streaming audio file.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison, wherein the digital control processor has programming to be able to play a streaming audio file (Par.[0055-0061] audio files from media playback device #202 may be streaming audio files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide programming for playing streaming audio to the system of Grimanis as performed by the invention of Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to play streaming audio files.
With respect to claim 11, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 7, including a communication interface (fig.5a,b #17) and at least one microphone (fig.5a,b #12) receives the frequency response of said speaker and said frequency response is received via the communication interface be said digital control processor (Par.[0173-0174][0177]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly wherein the communication interface is a Wi-Fi receiver.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison (Par.[0055-0061]); including a Wi-Fi receiver and at least one microphone receives the frequency response of said speaker and said frequency response is received via Wi-Fi via said digital processor (Par.[0038-0039] network interface #150 may include a Wi-Fi receiver, wherein Wi-Fi receivers may receive streaming audio files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a Wi-Fi receiver as the communication interface of Grimanis, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a readily available wireless communication protocol for communication between the smartphone device #18 and loudspeaker system of Grimanis.
With respect to claim 12, Grimanis discloses a digital control processor (fig.5a,b #16/18) for use in playing an audio file by means of a cinema processor (fig.5a,b #15/19) having a volume control (fig.4 “equalizer”), said digital control processor comprising:
programming to transmit a signal to said cinema processor setting the volume of said cinema control to a predetermined setting (Par.[0167-0168] an output signal “calibration filter #40”, see fig.3 #40, is provided for choosing an appropriate filter gain/volume #42 of an equalizer of the audio calibration module, to match the target frequency response).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly wherein the audio file is a streaming audio file.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison, wherein the digital control processor has programming to be able to play a streaming audio file (Par.[0055-0061] audio files from media playback device #202 may be streaming audio files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide programming for playing streaming audio to the system of Grimanis as performed by the invention of Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to play streaming audio files.
With respect to claim 13, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 12, however does not disclose expressly in which said predetermined setting is 85db.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses, including a desired output of signals including a volume of 85db. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired volume of the output frequency response to include 85db. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control the volume of the output frequency response.
With respect to claim 14, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 12, however does not disclose expressly in which said predetermined setting is the "7" setting.
Official Notice is taken that is well-known in the art that equalizers may provide adjustment of audio signals to result in a variety of different desired frequency responses. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the equalizer of Grimanis to provide a desired volume of the output frequency response. The motivation or doing so would have been to allow a user to control the volume of the output frequency response.
With respect to claim 15, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 12, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent constantly.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
With respect to claim 16, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 12, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent to said cinema processor repeatedly at least every 10 milliseconds.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly, wherein a constant updating of signals is a repeated process at least every 10 milliseconds).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
With respect to claim 19, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 18, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent constantly.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
With respect to claim 20, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 18, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent to said cinema processor repeatedly at least every 10 milliseconds.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly, wherein a constant updating of signals is a repeated process at least every 10 milliseconds).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
With respect to claim 22, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 21, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent constantly.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
With respect to claim 23, Grimanis discloses the digital control processor of claim 21, wherein the calibration process is an iterative calibration process in which the test signal of the method may be sent repeatedly (Par.[0122]).
Grimanis does not disclose expressly in which the signal is sent to said cinema processor repeatedly at least every 10 milliseconds.
Garcia discloses a digital control processor (fig.1 #170) configured for playing an audio file (fig.2 #202), comprising an audio calibration module (fig.2 #204,208,222) for receiving frequency response curve of a test audio signal captured by a microphone (fig.2 #214), comparing the frequency response curve to the test audio signal, and adjusting an audio output signal via a dynamic equalizer #208 based on the comparison; and wherein the test audio signal is sent constantly (Par.[0100] the calibration method of Garcia is performed in real time as an iterative process, wherein the streaming media content is sent constantly and updated coefficients are determined repeatedly, wherein a constant updating of signals is a repeated process at least every 10 milliseconds).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the calibration process of Grimanis on a constantly sent streaming audio signal, as performed by Garcia. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the streaming content in real-time to account for variations in the streaming media content or the acoustic environment, as taught by Garcia (Par.[0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonnick et al (US 20120140936 A1) discloses a system for monitoring cinema loudspeakers and compensating for quality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695