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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0073731), and further in view of Lambourne (US Patent No. 11,076,035).
Regarding claim 1, Fish teaches a notification system comprising:
an obtainer that obtains an audio content to be notified of and priority information on priority of the audio content (Fig. 1C items 111, 112d, Paragraphs 0088-0100, 0143-0144 audio notification with associated priority received);
a first notifier that notifies of the audio content (Fig. 1C items 112c, 112g, 112h, Paragraphs 0062-0065, 0101, 0104, 0144-0148 playback device audio processor notifying audio notification); and
a controller (Fig. 1C items 112a-112c, Paragraphs 0053-0065, 0139-0141) that performs first control of controlling notification of the audio content by the first notifier in accordance with the priority identified based on the priority information obtained by the obtainer, wherein in the first control, the controller: causes the first notifier to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a first rank (Paragraphs 0114-0115, 0144-0148 queuing and playing high priority audio notification) (Paragraphs 0088-0152 for complete details).
Fish obviously teaches halting/ pausing (i.e. preventing) the first notifier from notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank (Paragraphs 0117 interrupting/preventing low priority audio notification, 0118 preventing playback of low priority audio notification, 0148 preventing/ stopping low priority audio notification), but Fish does not explicitly teach it as prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank.
However, in the similar field, Lambourne teaches to prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) (col. 26 ll. 47-50, col. 32 ll. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fish to prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) as taught by Lambourne in order to be not disturbed by unimportant matters in a quiet time period.
Regarding claim 5, Fish teaches wherein the first notifier is capable of further notifying of a visual content related to the audio content (Paragraphs 0128, 0130 audio and visual notification, 0136 playing back video content), the first notifier is included in a first device capable of outputting a sound and a video (Fig. 1C in playback device), and the controller performs second control of causing the first notifier to notify of the audio content regardless of the priority identified based on the priority information (Paragraphs 0106 flexibility to play notifications in any combination of playback devices, 0114-0121, 0144-0148, 0152 playing all notifications regardless of notification priority). Regarding “when the first device is not outputting an image” limitation, since Fish teaches playing notification regardless of any condition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention modify Fish to add conditionality to output of audio notification as an implementation choice.
Regarding claim 6, Fish teaches a second notifier that notifies of the audio content (Fig. 1E item 110i playback device with its own notifier) and is different from the first notifier (Fig. 1E item 110a playback device with its own notifier), wherein the first notifier is included in a first device capable of outputting a sound and a video (Paragraphs 0128, 0130 audio and visual notification, 0136 playing back video content), the second notifier is included in a second device capable of outputting a sound (Paragraphs 0128, 0130 audio notification), and in the first control, the controller: further causes the second notifier to notify of the audio content, when the priority is the first rank; and causes the second notifier to notify of the audio content, when the priority is the second rank (Paragraphs 0066, 0106 flexibility to play notifications in any combination of playback devices, 0114-0121, 0144-0148, 0152 playing all notifications regardless of notification priority).
Regarding claim 7, Fish teaches a notification method comprising:
obtaining an audio content to be notified of and priority information on priority of the audio content (Paragraphs 0088-0100, 0143-0144 audio notification with associated priority received);
determining whether to notify of the audio content in accordance with the priority identified based on the priority information; and notifying of the audio content based on a result of the determining, wherein the determining includes: determining to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a first rank (Paragraphs 0101, 0104, 0114-0115, 0142-0148 playback device determining based on priority and queuing and playing high priority audio notification based on priority) (Paragraphs 0088-0152 for complete details).
Fish obviously teaches determining not to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank (Paragraphs 0117 interrupting/preventing low priority audio notification, 0118 preventing playback of low priority audio notification, 0148 preventing/ stopping low priority audio notification), but Fish does not explicitly teach it as determining not to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank.
However, in the similar field, Lambourne teaches determining not to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) (col. 26 ll. 47-50, col. 32 ll. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fish to include determining not to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) as taught by Lambourne in order to be not disturbed by unimportant matters in a quiet time period.
Regarding claim 8, Fish teaches a control device (Fig. 1C item 110a) communicably connected to a notification device (Fig. 1C item 114), the control device comprising:
an obtainer that obtains an audio content to be notified of and priority information on priority of the audio content (Fig. 1C items 111, 112d, Paragraphs 0088-0100, 0143-0144 audio notification with associated priority received); and
a controller (Fig. 1C items 112a-112c, Paragraphs 0053-0065, 0139-0141) that that controls notification of the audio content by the notification device in accordance with the priority identified based on the priority information obtained by the obtainer, wherein the controller: causes the notification device to notify of the audio content, when the priority is a first rank (Paragraphs 0114-0115, 0144-0148 queuing and playing high priority audio notification) (Paragraphs 0088-0152 for complete details).
Fish obviously teaches halting/ pausing (i.e. preventing) the notification device from notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank (Paragraphs 0117 interrupting/preventing low priority audio notification, 0118 preventing playback of low priority audio notification, 0148 preventing/ stopping low priority audio notification), but Fish does not explicitly teach it as prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank that is lower than the first rank.
However, in the similar field, Lambourne teaches to prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) (col. 26 ll. 47-50, col. 32 ll. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fish to prevent notifying of the audio content, when the priority is a second rank (low priority) that is lower than the first rank (high priority) as taught by Lambourne in order to be not disturbed by unimportant matters in a quiet time period.
Regarding claim 9, Fish teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the notification method according to claim 7 (Paragraphs 0140-0141), and Lambourne teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the notification method according to claim 7 (col. 10 ll. 34-67).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish and Lambourne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauser (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0344375).
Regarding claim 2, Fish teaches wherein in the first control, the controller causes the first notifier to provide a sound other than voice (Paragraph 0094 chime), but over Fish and Lambourne do not explicitly teach to provide a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank.
However, in the similar field of communication, Hauser teaches to provide a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank (Paragraphs 0016, 0034, 0077-0078 medium and lower priority can use notification with any combination of beep, buzz, vibration sound, visual etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify over Fish and Lambourne to provide a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank as taught by Hauser in order to “associate any desired combination of audible, visual, and tactile notifications with different priority levels” (Hauser, Paragraph 0077) including “a beep, buzz, or other audible alert that the user can hear” (Hauser, Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Fish teaches wherein the first notifier is capable of further notifying of a visual content related to the audio content (Paragraph 0130), but Fish and Lambourne do not teach to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank.
However, in the similar field of communication, Hauser teaches to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank (Paragraphs 0016, 0034, 0077-0078 lower priority with visual notification only).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fish and Lambourne to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank as taught by Hauser in order to “associate any desired combination of audible, visual, and tactile notifications with different priority levels” (Hauser, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 4, Fish teaches wherein the first notifier is capable of further notifying of a visual content related to the audio content (Paragraph 0130), but Fish and Lambourne do not teach to cause to notify of the visual content and a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank; and to cause to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is a third rank that is lower than the second rank.
However, in the similar field of communication, Hauser teaches to cause to notify of the visual content and a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank (medium priority with vibration sound and visual notification); and to cause to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is a third rank that is lower than the second rank (lower priority with visual notification) (Paragraphs 0016, 0034, 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fish and Lambourne to cause to notify of the visual content and a sound other than voice, when the priority identified based on the priority information is the second rank; and to cause to notify of the visual content, when the priority identified based on the priority information is a third rank that is lower than the second rank as taught by Hauser in order to “associate any desired combination of audible, visual, and tactile notifications with different priority levels” (Hauser, Paragraph 0077).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nguyen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0136629) teaches a system with an electronic device including a notification device for smart notifications of incoming messages based on their relevance levels that are translated to corresponding notification levels. It provides notification relevance level display as well as corresponding different levels of vibration messages.
Carrigan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0342628) teaches a device with display for notifications of messages, based on their priority, in flexible combination of audio and/or visual display. It allows custom setup of notification for various applications and their message notifications with different priority levels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694