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 .
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.
Claim (s) 33-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No.12,069,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) are broader variation of the patented claim language and wherein lacking the descrambling aspect according to key available and thus said prior patent would have anticipated the patented claim language as presented.
Claim (s) 33, 35, 42 & 43,45, 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3, 9 & 26; 28; 32 respectively of U.S. Patent No.11,510,005. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) are broader variation of the patented claim language and wherein lacking the descrambling aspect according to key available and thus said prior patent would have anticipated the patented claim language as presented.
Claim (s) 33-34, 39-40,42 & 43-33,52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-2, 5-6,9 & 26-27, 32 respectively of U.S. Patent No.10,951,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) are broader variation of the patented claim language and wherein lacking the descrambling aspect according to key available and thus said prior patent would have anticipated the patented claim language as presented.
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(s) 33-34, 37-39, 43-44, 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocci (US 4,440,976) and Hiltunen et al. (US 9,818, 315 B2) and Bonanno (US 8,879,751 B2).
Claim 33, Bocci et al. disclose of a device comprising: circuitry to: operate in a privacy or a non-privacy mode (col.1 line 60-67; fig.1 (10)), process an audio signal from a secondary device (col.2 line 40-52), determine whether a key for the second audio signal is available according to an identification signal (col.2 line 40-60; col.3 line 25-30) & mute the second audio signal if the key is unavailable; and receive the second audio signal according to the key, if the key is available (col.2 line 40-60).
However, Bocci et al. never specify of the key comprises an identity of the secondary device and the device. However, Hiltunen et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a device with secured communication wherein the key comprises an identity of the secondary device and the device (col.9 line 50-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related key comprises an identity of the secondary device and the device so as to enhance the integrity of the sent signals.
In addition, none of the prior art refer to the device as being a headset and having circuitry to process a first audio signal from a microphone. However, Bonanno disclose of such a headset comprising circuitry to process a first audio signal from a microphone (fig.2; col.6 line 10-40). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect related to a headset comprising circuitry to process a first audio signal from a microphone so as to allow such user with a headset to engage in communication with other users.
34. (New) The headset of claim 33, wherein the headset comprises: the microphone for receiving the first audio signal (Bo-fig.2; col.6 line 10-40).
37. (New) The headset of claim 33, wherein the secondary device is a mobile communication device (Bocci-col.1 line 10-15/communication between members with mobile device ).
38. (New) The headset of claim 33, but the prior art never specify as wherein the secondary device is a video game counsel.
However, Bonano disclose of a system including secondary device being a video game counsel (fig.2; col.6 line 10-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect regarding secondary device being a video game counsel so as to allow various users at remote locations to engage and converse in gaming aspects.
39. (New) The headset of claim 33, but the art never mentioned as wherein the circuitry of the headset is operable to receive the first audio signal using a key.
But, the examiner takes official notice using a certain key to receive audio signal is well known in the art. Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art y adding such aspect related to g a certain key to receive audio signal so as to allow the user to manually enable the microphone signals.
Similarly, the method of claim(s) 43-44, 47-49 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as in claim(s) 33-34, 37-39 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 40, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocci (US 4,440,976) and Hiltunen et al. (US 9,818, 315 B2) and Bonanno (US 8,879,751 B2) and Dua (US 8,463,184 B2).
40. (New) The headset of claim 33, but the prior art never specify as wherein: while operating in the privacy mode, the circuitry of the headset is operable to: receive the first audio signal using a key, and transmit an associated identification signal with the first audio signal; and the associated identification signal enables circuitry of the secondary device to determine which key to use for receiving the first audio signal.
But, Dua disclose of the similar system wherein while operating in the privacy mode, the circuitry of the device is operable to: receive the first audio signal using a key, and transmit an associated identification signal with the first audio signal; and the associated identification signal enables circuitry of the secondary device to determine which key to use for receiving the first audio signal (col.21 line 10-20 & col.32 line 20-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the device by adding such aspect related to receive the first audio signal using a key, and transmit an associated identification signal with the first audio signal; and the associated identification signal enables circuitry of the secondary device to determine which key to use for receiving the first audio signal so as to allow secure and private communication between various devices.
Similarly, the method of claim(s) 50 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as in claim(s) 40 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 41, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocci (US 4,440,976) and Hiltunen et al. (US 9,818, 315 B2) and Bonanno (US 8,879,751 B2) and Olberg et al. (US 4,268,720).
41. (New) The headset of claim 33, but the prior art never specify as wherein while operating in the privacy mode, the circuitry of the headset is operable to: transmit a begin-privacy indicator before a first audio signal, and transmit an end-privacy indicator after the first audio signal.
Herein the prior art as in Olberg et al. disclose of the similar aspect regarding operating in the privacy mode, the circuitry of the headset is operable to: transmit a begin-privacy indicator before a first audio signal, and transmit an end-privacy indicator after the first audio signal (col.6 line 5-15 & col.8 line 20-25). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted circuitry of the headset is operable to: transmit a begin-privacy indicator before a first audio signal, and transmit an end-privacy indicator after the first audio signal so as to allow synchronization between burst as to ensure that stored speech is release and transmitted accordingly.
Similarly, the method of claim(s) 51 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as in claim(s) 41 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 42, 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocci (US 4,440,976) and Hiltunen et al. (US 9,818, 315 B2) and Bonanno (US 8,879,751 B2) and Ayoub et al. (US 11,178,489 B2).
42. (New) The headset of claim 33, but the prior art never specify as wherein the circuitry of the headset is operable to toggle between the privacy mode and the non-privacy mode in response to a press of a button of the headset.
But, Ayoub et al. disclose of a headset comprising circuitry of the headset is operable to toggle between the privacy mode and the non-privacy mode in response to a press of a button of the headset (fig.1 (122); col.2 line 50-62). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related headset is operable to toggle between the privacy mode and the non-privacy mode in response to a press of a button of the headset so as to allow the user to manually configured the mode function.
Similarly, the method of claim(s) 52 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as in claim(s) 42 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 35-36, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocci (US 4,440,976) and Hiltunen et al. (US 9,818, 315 B2) and Bonanno (US 8,879,751 B2) and Siegumfeldt et al. (US 9,497,541 B1).
35. (New) The headset of claim 33, wherein the identification signal is mentioned beforehand, however, Bocci never limit such identification signal as indicates a role of a user of the headset in an online multiuser game.
However, the concept of implementing an identification signal to allow a certain configuration is noted (col.5 line 1-15). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such concept of noting an identification signal to allow a certain configuration so as to provide private audio data according to it property.
Although, the prior art never limit such property as related to indicates a role of a user of the headset in an online multiuser game, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with audio property by specifying such property as indicating role of a user of the headset in an online multiuser game for achieving the same result as to provide private audio data according to user’s role during a game
Similarly, the claim (s) 36 in regard to signal as identification signal indicates a team of a user of the headset in an online multiuser game has been analyzed and rejected in light of claim(s) 35.
Similarly, the method of claim(s) 45-46 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as in claim(s) 35-36 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian 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.
/DISLER PAUL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights