DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “A flexible networking system for supporting multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone, comprising a computer and at least one device(s) electrically connected to the computer”. Using the term “device” throughout is confusing since “device” is a generic term and could refer to any item. For example it is unclear if the references to “other device” only include the devices of the “at least one device(s)”. Looking at the context it seems like using “speakerphone” instead of “device” would make the claims clearer throughout.
Related to the above, claims 8-10 refer to “any omnidirectional speakerphone” which seems odd since nowhere else in the claims, other than the preambles, are speakerphones mentioned.
Alternatively, the use of modifiers such as “first device” could add clarity and/or some sort of structuring to the claim such as “for each device, …” which makes it clear that each device is the same and behaves similarly.
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 1 states “when the device serves as the master device”. There should be an indent before this to match the one before “when the device serves as a slave device”.
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 1 states “when the device serves as a slave device”. This should be “when a device serves as a slave device” or “when a first device serves as a slave device” since it is unclear which device “the device” is referring back to. Alternatively, the claim could take the form:
“wherein each device comprises …;
wherein for each device, when the device serves as a slave device…”, with the rest of the claim indented under the underlined wherein clause.
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 1 states “when the device serves as a slave device, the audio processor is configured to receive audio data of the array microphone of the device when the device serves as the slave device”. This underlined section could be removed to make the claims easier to read since it only repeats what is already said. Once again, this is reason to have a “for each device” type claim structure.
Similar correction could be made to the “master device” section.
Similarly, “the array microphone is configured to collect audio data from an external sound source and transmit the audio data collected from the external sound source to the audio processing audio processor of the device which the microphone is comprised in” could be “the array microphone is configured to collect audio data from an external sound source and transmit the audio data collected from the external sound source to the audio processing audio processor”
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 1 states “which the microphone is comprised in” in the next to last indent. This should be “which the array microphone is comprised in” to match the other mentions.
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 1 states “collect audio data from” in the next to last indent, that looks to have an underscore that is not a change marking. This should be removed.
Claims 2-11 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 2 is states “The flexible networking system for supporting the multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone according to claim 1” which should be “The flexible networking system for supporting multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone according to claim 1” to clearly repeat what claim 1 is drawn to.
Claims 3-11 are objected in an analogous manner, since all contain such language in the preamble.
Claim 2 states “wherein the cascaded data interface comprises…” which should be “wherein each cascaded data interface comprises…” since each device has an interface.
Claims 3-10 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Regarding claim 3, the section starting with “the master device adding process is specifically described as follows” refers to “the slave device” which should be “a slave device” since it is referring to a new instance of a slave device and does not refer back to a previous instance.
The section “the master device losing process” similarly contains “the slave device” which should be “the slave device”. The first instance should be changed, wherein the second and third instance refer back to the first, and are therefore correct.
Claim 11 is objected in an analogous manner.
Claims 4-10 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 states “comprising a computer and at least one device(s) electrically connected to the computer”. It is unclear how there can only be one device for other parts of the claim that refer to connections between devices, as well as the mentions of “adjacent devices” and “other devices”. It is suggested that this portion be changed to “comprising a computer and a plurality of devices electrically connected to the computer”.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 3 is to “A flexible networking method for supporting multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone, based on the flexible networking system for supporting the multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone according to claim 1, the method comprising”. The scope of a method being “based on” another claim is unclear. Also, claim 1 should be recited as it is. Adding “the” before multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone causes antecedent basis problems.
Perhaps “A flexible networking method for controlling the flexible networking system for supporting multi-level cascaded omnidirectional speakerphone according to claim 1, the method comprising” could be used.
Claim 11 is rejected in an analogous manner.
Claims 4-10 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
In general the claims refer to “audio data” many times in many forms. Applicant must be diligent to make sure it is clear which “audio data” is being referred to.
For example, claim 1 states “when the device serves as a slave device, the audio processor is configured to receive audio data of the array microphone of the device when the device serves as the slave device, receive audio data from a master device and use the audio data received from the master device as a reference signal, process the audio data, send the processed audio data to the cascaded data interface, and send the audio data received from the master device to the loudspeaker to be played”. Since audio data is being received from multiple sources, it is unclear which data is be referred to by the “process the audio data” limitation. Like the other mentions, the data could be described as “the audio data received from X” or something like “all received audio data”.
Claim 1 also states “when the device serves as the master device, the audio processor is configured to receive the audio data of the array microphone of the device which is served as the master device, receive the audio data from the computer and use the audio data received from the computer as the reference signal, perform energy comparison on the audio data received from the computer and the processed audio data from the cascaded data interface, select a group of audio data having a maximum energy and send the selected group of audio data to the computer, and send the audio data received from the computer to the loudspeaker”. Since this is a different instance of the device, “the audio data of the microphone array” should be “audio data of the microphone array” to match the slave section.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the audio data from the computer" in the third indent. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 refers to “a processed audio data”. It is unclear which processed audio data the refers to since multiple processed audio data have been previously mentioned (at least claims 1 and 3). Perhaps “first processed audio data” and “second processed audio data” could be used to differentiate such data.
Claim 11 is rejected in an analogous manner and has similar problems to claim 3 as above.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 3 states “the device is automatically …, is set as an audio source and records the audio source”, which is unclear. It is clear what it means for a device to be set as an audio source, but it is unclear what exactly is being recorded. Perhaps some mention of audio data from the array microphone or audio processor could clarify what is recorded.
Claim 11 is rejected in an analogous manner.
Claims 4-10 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chu et al. (US 20130106975 Al)(see abstract and figures 1 and 4A) and Albert et al. (US 20110063406)(see abstract and figures 1 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights