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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16-18 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenes et al. (US 2012/0182988) in view of Strait et al. (US 8,315,412).
Brenes et al. discloses:
in regard to claim 1 a method comprising: receiving, based on a plurality of proximity sensors (paragraph 0012: “there is provided a communication system configured to receive an input from multiple different audio or video input transducers of different terminals”) associated with a plurality of audio devices (paragraph 0054: “The audio inputs from the microphones may also determine a suitable audio output transducer, e.g. by selecting between a loudspeaker 210 and the headphones 302 of a headset 218 depending on which microphone is generating the most vocal energy”; paragraph 0043: “Each of the transducers 208-218 is operatively coupled to the processing apparatus 204 such that the client is able to receive input from any or all of the input transducers 208, 212, 216, 218 and supply outputs to any or all of the output transducers 210, 214, 218”), sensor data associated with each proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors (paragraph 0057: “Other techniques that can be used to detect the presence or proximity of a particular user include motion estimation to detect the presence of a suitably sized moving object (which may be taken as a human moving between rooms)”); causing, based on the sensor data associated with a proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors indicating a presence of a user, an audio device of the plurality of audio devices to output audio content (paragraph 0053: “Depending on the approximate location of a user within a room, or depending on whether or not the user is wearing his or her headset 218, then the optimal microphone for use in making or answering a call may vary”; paragraph 0057: “an analysis of the energy levels from different microphones or cameras of different terminals may be used to determine the presence of the user in a particular room or the proximity to a particular terminal, and hence determine the best terminal for answering or making a call, or to switch between the terminals during an ongoing call as the user roams about the house”; paragraph 0054: “The audio inputs from the microphones may also determine a suitable audio output transducer, e.g. by selecting between a loudspeaker 210 and the headphones 302 of a headset 218 depending on which microphone is generating the most vocal energy.”); updating, based on the audio device, audio information (paragraph 0057: “an analysis of the energy levels from different microphones or cameras of different terminals may be used to determine the presence of the user in a particular room or the proximity to a particular terminal, and hence determine the best terminal for answering or making a call, or to switch between the terminals during an ongoing call as the user roams about the house”); and causing, based on the updated audio information, the audio device to output audio content (paragraph 0054: “The audio inputs from the microphones may also determine a suitable audio output transducer, e.g. by selecting between a loudspeaker 210 and the headphones 302 of a headset 218 depending on which microphone is generating the most vocal energy.”);
in regard to claim 2, determining based on a quality of service associated with the proximity sensor indicating the presence of the user, the audio device of the plurality of audio devices (paragraph 0054: “The audio inputs from the microphones may also determine a suitable audio output transducer, e.g. by selecting between a loudspeaker 210 and the headphones 302 of a headset 218 depending on which microphone is generating the most vocal energy.”; paragraph 0055: “detection of a rustling or scrabbling sound at the headset microphone 304 may be taken as indicative of the user fumbling for their headset to answer an incoming call, and this can be used to select the headset 218 for audio input and/or output”); and
in regard to claim 3, determining, based on a signal strength associated with the proximity sensor indicating the presence of the user, the audio device of the plurality of audio devices (paragraph 0054: “The audio inputs from the microphones may also determine a suitable audio output transducer, e.g. by selecting between a loudspeaker 210 and the headphones 302 of a headset 218 depending on which microphone is generating the most vocal energy.”).
However, Brenes et al. does not explicitly disclose: in regard to claims 1-3, causing an audio device of the plurality of audio devices to activate in response to the sensor data. It is noted that in claims 1-3, Brenes et al. teaches that the audio devices are already activated by default, as suggested in the sections cited above. However, there is no explicit teaching of activating a selected device in response to the sensor data received from proximity sensors.
Strait et al. discloses: in regard to claims 1-3, causing an audio device to activate based on sensor data (patent claim 6: “a motion detector configured to detect a user's presence and to send a signal to effect activation of the audio reception device in response to a detection of the user's presence in an area proximate to the audio reception device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have applied Strait et al.’s teaching of activating an audio device based on sensor data to Brenes et al.’s teaching of outputting audio content based on sensor data, the motivation being to enable secure access to equipment (see abstract).
In regard to claim 21, Brenes et al. discloses that the plurality of proximity sensors comprise one or more of an image sensor (paragraph 0057: “Other techniques that can be used to detect the presence or proximity of a particular user include motion estimation to detect the presence of a suitably sized moving object (which may be taken as a human moving between rooms), a Fourier analysis to determine an overall color property of an image or moving object (e.g. based on the assumption that the moving user wears the same color clothes as they move between rooms)”), a thermal sensor, an infrared sensor, a biometric sensor (paragraph 0057: “facial recognition”), a RF sensor, or a haptic sensor.
Claims 6-8, 11-13, 16-18 & 22-24 have limitations similar to those of claims 1-3 & 21 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 & 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the Brenes et al. reference does not teach that the input, such as audio information, may be updated based on a selected audio device. The Examiner disagrees. Please see paragraph 0057 of Brenes et al., where it is taught that as a user roams around the house, the energy levels (i.e., audio information) from different microphones are analyzed, and the sound from an ongoing phone call is output to the device where the user is detected to be closest to, i.e., the claimed outputting audio content based on the updated audio information. When a user walks closer to a device 102a, this device increases its energy level, i.e., the claimed audio information being updated, as compared to the other devices, and therefore the phone call is switched to this device. Similarly, as the user roams around the room and gets closer to device 102b, the energy level in its microphone increases (audio information is updated), while the energy level in the microphone of device 102a decreases, and the phone call is now switched to device 102a.
Applicant argues that the Brenes et al. reference is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of “causing, based on the sensor data associated with a proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensos indicating a presence of a user, an audio device of the plurality of audio devices to activate”. Please see the Non-Final Rejection, as well as this Final Rejection, where the Examiner already conceded to the missing limitations not taught by Brenes et al.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Strait et al. reference does not modify or update information in response to which device is activated, please note that the Brenes et al. reference was relied upon for teaching this feature, see the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Strait et al. is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of “causing, based on the sensor data associated with a proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors indicating a presence of a user, an audio device of the plurality of audio devices to activate”, the applicant appears to be arguing against an individual reference where the rejection is based on a combination of references, and therefore, the argument is not persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Office Action’s combination of Strait with Brenes employs improper hindsight reasoning that uses the invention as a road map to find its prior art components, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Examiner relied upon the Strait et al. reference for teaching causing an audio device to activate based on sensor data, which a person of ordinary skill would have recognized to be similarly applicable to the audio device of Brenes et al., regardless of Strait et al. being in a different field of endeavor, since both references recite audio devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Vincent Agustin whose telephone number is (571)272-7567. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/Peter Vincent Agustin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights