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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach accessing a Rules Engine to Determine Concurrency Restrictions; Disassociating or Precluding Based At Least In Part on the Determination of the Concurrency Restrictions (Amendment, pages 11, 12).
The examiner disagrees, since Woo et al. disclose “playback devices in a bonded zone can be calibrated together and concurrently, rather than separately. For example, calibration software, such as SONOS's TRUEPLAY® can be used to calibrate a bonded zone together as a single entity. This is in contrast to playback devices that are merely grouped together, which may be calibrated either before or after formation of the group. In related embodiments, bonding playback devices can cause the MPS 100 and/or the VAS 160 to initiate multi-turn or other commands for calibrating playback devices, as shown in FIGS. 3E and 3F…The configuration changes may include adding/removing one or more playback devices to/from a zone, adding/removing one or more zones to/from a zone group, forming a bonded or merged player, separating one or more playback devices from a bonded or merged player, among others…Other interactions and implementations for grouping and ungrouping zones via a user interface such as the user interface 400 are also possible. The representations of playback zones in the playback zone region 443 (FIG. 4B) may be dynamically updated as playback zone or zone group configurations are modified.” (paragraphs 59, 73, 77).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 - 11, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to claims 20 – 39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 20 – 39 under 35 U.S.C 101 has been withdrawn.
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 20 – 39 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 - 42 of copending Application No. 18/007,415 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 20 – 39 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of claims 20 – 42 of copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Here is a comparison between claims 20 of the instant application and claim 20 of the copending application.
Instant Application 18/693,793
Co-pending Application 18/007,415
Comparison
20. A first playback device comprising:
20. A network microphone device comprising:
Similar
one or more microphones;
one or more microphones;
Same
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one
or more processors, cause the first playback device to perform operations
comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Same
associating the first playback device with a first voice assistant service (VAS);
associating the network microphone device with a first voice assistant service (VAS);
Same
receiving a command to form a synchrony group for synchronous audio playback, the synchrony group including the first playback device and a second playback device; obtaining an indication that the second playback device is associated with a second VAS different from the first;
receiving a command to associate the network microphone device with a second VAS different from the first;
Similar
accessing a rules engine to determine concurrency restrictions; and
based at least in part on the determination of the concurrency restrictions: disassociating the first playback device and the first VAS; disassociating the second playback device and the second VAS; or precluding formation of the synchrony group.
after receiving the command, accessing a rules engine to determine concurrency restrictions; and based at least in part on the determination of the concurrency restrictions, restricting concurrency by: (i) disassociating the network microphone device and the first VAS, and associating the network microphone device with the second VAS; or (ii) precluding associating the network microphone device with the second VAS.
Similar
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woo et al. (US PAP 2020/0007987).
As per claims 20, 28, 36, Woo et al. teach a first playback device comprising:
one or more microphones (paragraph 88);
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first playback device to perform operations comprising (paragraphs 102, 154):
associating the first playback device with a first voice assistant service (VAS) [“managing the VAS(es) associated with particular playback devices of a bonded zone”; paragraph 131];
receiving a command to form a synchrony group for synchronous audio playback, the synchrony group including the first playback device and a second playback device (“Playback devices may be dynamically grouped and ungrouped to form new or different groups that synchronously play back audio content…the voice utterance can be a command to be performed locally by the playback device, such as grouping or bonding the device with other playback devices”; paragraphs 61, 138);
obtaining an indication that the second playback device is associated with a second VAS different from the first [“each audio item in the playback queue may comprise a uniform resource identifier (URI), a uniform resource locator (URL) or some other identifier that may be used by a playback device in the playback zone…managing the VAS(es) associated with particular playback devices of a bonded zone”; paragraphs 61 – 65, 79,131];
accessing a rules engine to determine concurrency restrictions; and
based at least in part on the determination of the concurrency restrictions; disassociating the first playback device and the first VAS; disassociating the second playback device and the second VAS; or precluding formation of the synchrony group (“adding/removing one or more zones to/from a zone group, forming a bonded or merged player, separating one or more playback devices from a bonded or merged player…the Bed1 playback device is associated with VAS1 while the Bed2 playback device is associated with VAS2. Again, these associations can be separately modified by the user as desired by selecting the “Change Voice Service” buttons.”; paragraphs 73, 134).
As per claims 21, 29, 37, Woo et al. further disclose the first VAS is associated with a first wake word, and the second VAS is associated with a second wake word different from the first, and wherein associating the first playback device with the first VAS comprises activating a first wake-word engine configured to detect the first wake word in sound data captured via the one or more microphones (“a user can use a first wake word such as “Alexa” to interact via voice input with AMAZON's ALEXA®, and alternately use a second wake word such as “OK, Google” to interact via voice input with GOOGLE's Assistant. Accordingly, even if individual playback devices cannot be associated with multiple VASes, a user may have access to multiple VASes through a single UI entity via the bonded zone.”; paragraphs 25, 31, 92 -97).
As per claims 22, 30, 38, Woo et al. further disclose the concurrency restrictions are based at least in part on the identity of the first VAS and the identity of the second VAS (“the Bed1 playback device is associated with VAS1 while the Bed2 playback device is associated with VAS2. Again, these associations can be separately modified by the user as desired by selecting the “Change Voice Service” buttons.”; paragraphs 73, 134).
As per claims 23, 31, 39, Woo et al. further disclose accessing the rules engine comprises: transmitting a request to one or more remote computing devices, wherein the request comprises identification of the first VAS and the second VAS; and
after transmitting the request, receiving state information corresponding to the concurrency restrictions (“When playback zones or zone groups are “grouped” or “ungrouped,” playback queues associated with the affected playback zones or zone groups may be cleared or re-associated. For example, if a first playback zone including a first playback queue is grouped with a second playback zone including a second playback queue, the established zone group may have an associated playback queue that is initially empty, that contains audio items from the first playback queue (such as if the second playback zone was added to the first playback zone)… Subsequently, if the established zone group is ungrouped, the resulting first playback zone may be re-associated with the previous first playback queue, or be associated with a new playback queue that is empty or contains audio items from the playback queue associated with the established zone group before the established zone group was ungrouped.”; paragraphs 24 – 32, 73, 81,134).
As per claims 24, 32, Woo et al. further disclose the rules engine includes limitations to associating the first playback device with one or more VASes, wherein the limitations comprise at least one of (i) a maximum number of VASes that can be associated with the first playback device, and (ii) an indication of whether particular VASes may be concurrently associated with the first playback device (“although a user may wish to utilize multiple VASes within her home, it may not be possible or preferable to associate a single playback device with more than one VAS.”; paragraphs 24 – 32, 73, 81,134).
As per claims 25, 33, Woo et al. further disclose the synchrony group comprises a bonded stereo pair or a home theatre configuration (paragraphs 32, 58).
As per claims 26, 34, Woo et al. further disclose disassociating the second playback device and the second VAS; forming the synchrony group including the first playback device and the second playback device while the first playback device remains associated with the first VAS; receiving a command to associate a third VAS with the first playback device and/or the second playback device, the third VAS being different from the second VAS; accessing the rules engine to determine concurrency restrictions; and after determining the concurrency restrictions, associating the third VAS with the first playback device and/or the second playback device (“managing the VAS(es) associated with particular playback devices of a bonded zone…adding/removing one or more zones to/from a zone group, forming a bonded or merged player, separating one or more playback devices from a bonded or merged player…the Bed1 playback device is associated with VAS1 while the Bed2 playback device is associated with VAS2. Again, these associations can be separately modified by the user as desired by selecting the “Change Voice Service” buttons”; paragraphs 24 – 32, 73, 81,131 - 134).
As per claims 27, 35, Woo et al. further disclose restricting formation of the synchrony group, the synchrony group is a first synchrony group comprising a bonded group; after restricting formation of the synchrony group, receiving a command to form a second synchrony group including the first playback device and the second playback
device, wherein the second synchrony group is not a bonded group; accessing the rules engine to determine concurrency restrictions; and after determining the concurrency restrictions, forming the second synchrony group while the first playback device is associated with the first VAS and the second playback device is associated with the second VAS (“Subsequently, if the established zone group is ungrouped, the resulting first playback zone may be re-associated with the previous first playback queue, or be associated with a new playback queue that is empty or contains audio items from the playback queue associated with the established zone group before the established zone group was ungrouped. Similarly, the resulting second playback zone may be re-associated with the previous second playback queue, or be associated with a new playback queue that is empty”; paragraphs 81, 131 – 134).
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 LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights