DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura US PG-Pub 2006/0233203 in combination with Poon US PG-Pub 2004/0199276 in view of Magliaro US PG-Pub 2006/0009983.
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 15, Iwamura teaches a communication interface (Fig. 3 & [0032]: interface-342); a speaker (Fig. 3-128,130); memory storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to control the electronic device (Fig. 3: memory-338 & CPU-336), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction causes the at least one processor to: receive audio data and data on the audio data, wherein data on the audio data comprises a time stamp information of an external device (Fig. 5 & [0050]: the Television sends time stamp & [0028]: the Television-102 sends audio signal encoded to devices like stereo-106 to be playback through loudspeakers-128,130), synchronize a system time of the electronic device with a system time of the external device by using a time stamp information of the electronic device and the time stamp information of the external device (Fig. 5-512 & [0056]: using the local clock and the time stamp of the external television-102 to create a clock rate adjustment so the audio decoder-404 of the device is synchronize with the television-102), store the audio data in a buffer in the memory based on the system time of the electronic device ([0066]: the audio data from the television-102 is send to decoders-404 and store in local buffers (which is done with the local clock, which has been synchronized)); output the audio data stored in the buffer by a first audio clock through the speaker ([0069]: after devices are synchronized and audio data on local buffer of audio decoder-505, it will be output through loudspeakers, using the local clock).
Iwamura failed to teach presentation time stamp indicating when the audio data is required to be output; change the first audio clock by comparing the audio data stored in the buffer with a predetermined buffer amount.
However, Poon teaches presentation time stamp indicating when the audio data is required to be output ([0029]: using presentation time stamp (PTS) with local clock to be able to generate audio output signal).
Iwamura and Poon are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because using presentation time stamps allows to synchronize audio and video data.
The combination failed to teach change the first audio clock by comparing the audio data stored in the buffer with a predetermined buffer amount.
However, Magliaro teaches change the first audio clock by comparing the audio data stored in the buffer with a predetermined buffer amount (Fig. 6 & [0039]-[0040]: adjusting the audio clock (playback rate) based on the degree of buffer fullness).
The combination and Magliaro are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because it is an alternate equivalent way to deal with synchronization issues.
Regarding claim 2, 9 and 16, the combination failed to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction further causes the at least one processor to: based on the audio data stored in the buffer being greater than or equal to a first buffer amount, change the first audio clock to a second audio clock higher than the first audio clock, or based on the audio data stored in the buffer being less than a second buffer amount, change the first audio clock to a third audio clock lower than the first audio clock.
However, Magliaro teaches based on the average audio data stored in the buffer being greater than a first buffer amount, change the first audio clock to a second audio clock higher than the first audio clock, or based on the average audio data stored in the buffer being less than a second buffer amount, change the first audio clock to a third audio clock lower than the first audio clock (Fig. 6 & [0039]: when buffer fullness is greater than 4.5 increase by 4hz; if fullness below 0.5 decrease by 4hz).
The combination and Magliaro are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because adjusting the clock/playback rate helps to deal with synchronization issues.
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17, the combination failed to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction further causes the at least one processor to: based on the audio data stored in the buffer being within or higher than a reference range of the buffer, change the first audio clock as a second audio clock higher than the first audio clock, and based on the audio data stored in the buffer being lower than the reference range of the buffer, change the first audio clock as a third audio clock lower than the first audio clock.
However, Magliaro teaches based on the average audio data stored in the buffer being higher than a reference range of the buffer, change the first audio clock as a second audio clock higher than the first audio clock, and based on the average audio data stored in the buffer being lower than the reference range of the buffer, change the first audio clock as a third audio clock lower than the first audio clock (Fig. 6 & [0039]: when buffer fullness is greater than 4.0-0.5 increase by 2hz; if fullness below 4.0-0.5 decrease by 4hz).
The combination and Magliaro are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because adjusting the clock/playback rate helps to deal with synchronization issues.
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, Iwamura teaches wherein the at least one instruction further causes the at least one processor to: identify reference time information based on the time stamp information of the external device and the time stamp information of the electronic device, and change the system time of the electronic device to the reference time ([0024] & Fig. 5-512 & [0056]: using the local clock and the time stamp of the external television-102 to change the system time (STC) of the audio decoder-404 is the system that has the local clock).
Claim 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura US PG-Pub 2006/0233203 in combination with Poon US PG-Pub 2004/0199276 in view of Magliaro US PG-Pub 2006/0009983 and further in view of Kim US PG-Pub 2013/0297319.
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 19, the combination teaches wherein the data on the audio data from the external device is received through wireless network, and wherein the at least one instruction further causes the at least one processor to receive a control signal for controlling the electronic device from the external device through wireless connection (Iwamura, Fig. 3 & [0029]: connection between devices can be done through wireless networks).
The combination failed to teach wireless fidelity direction connection.
However, Kim teaches wireless fidelity direction connection ([0126]:using wireless fidelity Wifi for wireless communication).
The combination and Kim are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because using wireless fidelity is an alternate equivalent way to wireless communicate between devices.
Claim 6-7, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura US PG-Pub 2006/0233203 in combination with Poon US PG-Pub 2004/0199276 in view of Magliaro US PG-Pub 2006/0009983 and further in view Baudino 2008/0077261.
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 20, the combination failed to teach transmit information on audio capable of being played by the electronic device to the external device, and receive the audio data capable of being played by the electronic device from the external device.
However, Baudino teaches transmit information on audio capable of being played by the electronic device to the external device, and receive the audio data capable of being played by the electronic device from the external device (Fig. 4: 404 a device submit it’s sound capabilities information then 414 it will receive the audio media based on it’s capabilities).
The combination and Baudino are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because it will improve playback quality.
Regarding claim 7, 14, the combination failed to teach receive, from the external device, the audio data including information on a plurality of channels and information on an audio channel played by the external device, and output the audio data through the speaker by using a channel other than the audio channel.
However, Baudino teaches receive, from the external device, the audio data including information on a plurality of channels and output the audio data through the speaker by using a channel other than the audio channel (Fig. 4-412 & [0004]: the master/external device will assign audio channel based on capabilities and the device will output only the channel it is assigned).
The combination and Baudino are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio synchronization. Therefore, 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, because it will improve playback quality and be able to provide surround sound. In addition, while Baudino does not explicitly teach external device transmitting information on an audio channel played by the external device. However, for the slave device to play a channel not played by the external device, it is not necessary to know what channel the external device is playing as the external device send what channel it can play so the whole system is synchronized and playing surround sound. These two ways are alternate equivalent way to make sure all devices are playing different channels that will all be synchronize to play surround sound. Therefore, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights