DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 5/23/2024:
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18672858 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Regarding claim 1, 18672858 teaches a system (claim 1, a system) comprising:
a wireless communication interface that is wirelessly coupled to a plurality of player audio devices in a casino (claim 1, a plurality of user audio devices in a casino; claim 19 teaches the wireless communication aspect);
a processor circuit (claim 1, a processor circuit); and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (claim 1, a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit), cause the processor circuit to:
perform a casino-specific sound routing operation using a casino-specific sound routing component that dynamically routes casino-specific sounds to adjust specific sound origins (claim 2, wherein the processor circuit is further caused to perform a casino-specific sound routing operation using a casino-specific sound routing component that dynamically routes casino-specific sounds to adjust specific sound origins); and
perform an active noise cancellation (ANC) operation to receive player sound data to adjust specific sound origins, wherein the received player sound data is used to personalize a casino-specific ANC profile, and to generate an ANC noise signal (claim 3, wherein the processor circuit is further caused to perform an active noise cancellation (ANC) operation to receive user sound data to adjust specific sound origins, and wherein the user sound data that is received is used to personalize a casino-specific ANC profile, and to generate an ANC noise signal),
wherein the wireless communication interface is caused to send the casino-specific sound routing component and the ANC noise signal to ones of the plurality of player audio devices (claim 4, wherein the processor circuit is further caused to send a casino-specific sound routing component and an ANC noise signal to ones of the plurality of user audio devices).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using one or more claims of the reference application (whether alone or in combination).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe short-range wireless connectivity standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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) 1-5, 13-14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al (US20210407490, hereinafter “Cardoso”) in view of Asada et al (US20210006927, hereinafter “Asada”).
Regarding claim 1, Cardoso teaches a system (abstract, a system) comprising:
a wireless communication interface that is wirelessly coupled to a plurality of player audio devices in a casino (Fig. 1, ¶5, a wireless communication interface capable of connecting to a plurality of player audio devices in a plurality of events including “entertainment events”);
a processor circuit (¶10, processor); and
a memory (¶10, memory) comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
perform an active noise cancellation (ANC) operation to receive player sound data to adjust specific sound origins, wherein the received player sound data is used to personalize a casino-specific ANC profile, and to generate an ANC noise signal (Fig. 3B, ¶43-45, plurality of noise objects are identified in the user’s environment and a noise profile is updated such that various noise objects are modified via active noise cancellation techniques to either completely remove said noise objects or to diminish their perceived value by the user),
wherein the wireless communication interface is caused to send the casino-specific sound routing component and the ANC noise signal to ones of the plurality of player audio devices (¶46, the noise signal profiles can be pushed to one of a plurality of users wherein the noise profiles comprise of parameters to adjust the ANC noise signal).
Cardoso fails to explicitly teach perform a casino-specific sound routing operation using a casino-specific sound routing component that dynamically routes casino-specific sounds to adjust specific sound origins;
Asada teaches perform a casino-specific sound routing operation using a casino-specific sound routing component that dynamically routes casino-specific sounds to adjust specific sound origins (¶95, using sound image localization techniques, it is possible to localize a sound image at any location);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of sound object recognition (as taught by Cardoso) with the sound image localization technique (as taught by Asada). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing a user to dynamically adjust a sound image as desired (Asada, ¶99).
Regarding claim 2, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein a portion of the plurality of player audio devices communicates with the processor circuit via an intervening access point (Cardoso, ¶31, wireless access points can be used).
Regarding claim 3, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein the casino-specific sound routing component comprises a sound type based on a type of sound being routed (Cardoso, Fig. 3B, ¶42, sound type can be identified), and
wherein the ANC operation comprises transmitting anti-noise signals to ones of the plurality of player audio devices (Cardoso, ¶35, noisy signals are identified and best treatment course (on how to best cancel the noises) is compiled into an ANC profile which is then pushed to the client).
Regarding claim 4, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches further comprising a plurality of reference signal microphones that are proximate ones of the plurality of player audio devices to provide an ambient noise reference signal for performing the ANC operation (Cardoso, ¶40, Fig. 1, user devices (equipped with microphone) collect noise samples).
Regarding claim 5, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein the plurality of player audio devices is operable to wirelessly communicate with a player’s mobile telecommunication device (Cardoso, Fig. 1, player audio devices operate wirelessly with user mobile devices).
Regarding claim 13, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein the casino-specific sound routing component addresses a plurality of sound types (Cardoso, ¶41, various labels can be given to the identified sound types) and a plurality of audio channels comprising a plurality of origins in the casino (Asada, ¶130, audio can be routed based on channels to control the apparent sound image).
Regarding claim 14, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein the ANC operation is specific to a casino environment (Cardoso, ¶5, casinos can be categorized as an “entertainment event”) and differentiates between each of a plurality of sound sources (Cardoso, ¶41, system capable of differentiating between various noises).
Regarding claim 16, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches wherein the processor circuit is further caused to store user preference data corresponding to audio source specific user preferences, and wherein user preference data is upgradable based on additional inputs received from the player (Asada, ¶106, user preferences can be applied).
Regarding claim 19, Cardoso in view of Asada teaches a method (Cardoso, ¶49, method) comprising:
connecting a casino wide Bluetooth based audio system with a plurality of wearable wireless audio devices (Cardoso, Fig. 1, a wireless system; Asada, ¶102, Bluetooth-based wireless system);
performing a casino-specific sound routing operation that adjusts casino audio channels and that routes casino-specific sounds based on a casino-specific sound routing operation (Cardoso, Fig. 3B, noise profile provides sound output adjustments so audio output is modified accordingly; Asada, ¶95, using sound image localization techniques, it is possible to localize a sound image at any location);
performing an active noise cancelling operation that comprises receiving player sound data; generating a noise cancelling signal; and sending the noise cancelling signal to a respective one of the plurality of wearable wireless audio devices (Cardoso, Fig. 3B, ¶40, 43, 46, noisy signals are identified and an anti-noise signal is generated according to the noise profile),
wherein the method further comprises: saving the casino specific sounds and the noise cancelling signal responsive to one of the plurality of wearable wireless audio devices disconnecting from the casino wide Bluetooth based audio system; and restoring the casino specific sounds and the noise cancelling signal responsive to the one of the plurality of wearable wireless audio devices reconnecting to the casino wide Bluetooth based audio system (Cardoso, ¶18, noise profiles can be set according to event rooms such that profiles can be loaded to user devices upon connection and wherein noise profiles can be further updated during use).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al (US20210407490, hereinafter “Cardoso”) in view of Asada et al (US20210006927, hereinafter “Asada”) in further view of Noertker et al (US20210281232, hereinafter “Noertker”).
Regarding claim 15, Cardoso in view of Asada fail to explicitly teach further comprising a casino-specific sound equalizer that receives a plurality of inputs, wherein the plurality of inputs comprises a volume input for each sound source, an intensity for each sound source and a switch to toggle an output device from one of the plurality of player audio devices and an EGM.
Noertker teaches further comprising a casino-specific sound equalizer that receives a plurality of inputs (¶14, EQ to be applied), wherein the plurality of inputs comprises a volume input for each sound source, an intensity for each sound source and a switch to toggle an output device from one of the plurality of player audio devices and an EGM (¶14, one or more acoustic parameters can be adjusted including volume and spectral content filtering; ¶39, physical and virtual switches can be used to adjust said one or more acoustic parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the audio equalization technique (as taught by Noertker) on the audio processing system (as taught by Cardoso in view of Asada). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of achieving audio content creator intent (Noertker, ¶14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed upon overcoming the above rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691