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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the application filed.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8 and 18 are independent claims. This action is made Non-Final.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12/,067,331. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ajmera et al (“Ajmera” US 2016/0323666).
Regarding claim 1, Ajmera discloses a computer-implemented method for providing selective control of an acoustic environment of a user (see the Abstract), the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a selected audio source of a plurality of audio sources in an environment of a user based at least in part on a selection user input performed at a peripheral device, the peripheral device in communication with the computing system, wherein the selection user input comprises directing the peripheral device toward the selected audio source (see paragraphs [0030]-[0032]; e.g. allowing the user to select a direction or area in his or her proximity on the display to determine the desired audio source);
receiving, by the computing system, data descriptive of a configuration user input performed at the peripheral device, the configuration user input indicative of an intent to configure a selective filtering level of the selected audio source, the selective filtering level comprising a degree of noise cancelling (see fig 3, 308 and 309; e.g., after audio selection, the attenuator 308 determines, at 309, which signals to attenuate and which signals to amplify); and
in response to receiving the configuration user input, configuring, by the computing system, the selective filtering level of the selected audio source based at least in part on the configuration user input (see fig 3; e.g., the cognitive agent receives complex noisy audio input and separates the received audio into separate audio streams based on source, and can then determine which stream the user desires to focus on based on various factors; after audio selection, the attenuator 308 determines, at 309, which signals to attenuate and which signals to amplify).
Regarding claim 3, Ajmera discloses wherein the configuration user input comprises a scroll gesture (see paragraphs [0029]-[0031]; e.g., gesture recognition).
Regarding claim 4, Ajmera discloses wherein determining the selected audio source of the plurality of audio sources comprises selecting, as the selected audio source, an audio source of the plurality of audio sources that is nearest a center of a field of view of a sensor of the peripheral device (see paragraphs [0030]-[0032]; e.g. allowing the user to select a direction or area in his or her proximity on the display to determine the desired audio source).
Regarding claim 5, Ajmera discloses wherein determining the selected audio source of the plurality of audio sources comprises cycling through the plurality of audio sources (see paragraph [0030]; e.g. gesture recognition).
Regarding claim 6, Ajmera discloses wherein the selective filtering level is at least one of a degree and a percentage of noise cancelled from the environment of the user (see fig 3; e.g., the cognitive agent receives complex noisy audio input and separates the received audio into separate audio streams based on source, and can then determine which stream the user desires to focus on based on various factors; after audio selection, the attenuator 308 determines, at 309, which signals to attenuate and which signals to amplify).
Regarding claim 7, Ajmera discloses wherein the selective filtering level is a relative volume of the selected audio source (see fig 3; e.g., the cognitive agent receives complex noisy audio input and separates the received audio into separate audio streams based on source, and can then determine which stream the user desires to focus on based on various factors; after audio selection, the attenuator 308 determines, at 309, which signals to attenuate and which signals to amplify).
Regarding claim 9, Ajmera discloses wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device (see fig 1 where the mobile device is shown).
Regarding claim 14, Ajmera discloses wherein the one or more user input components comprise one or more touch-sensitive surfaces (see paragraph [0030]; e.g. gesture recognition; haptics).
Regarding claim 15, Ajmera discloses wherein the computing device comprises one or more orientations systems defining a direction of the computing device, and wherein the selection user input comprises directing the direction of the computing device toward the selected audio source (see paragraphs [0030]-[0032]; e.g. allowing the user to select a direction or area in his or her proximity on the display to determine the desired audio source).
Claims 8, 10-12 and 16-17 are similar in scope to claims 1, 6-7, 2 and 4-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 18-20 are similar in scope to claims 1 and 4-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claim(s) 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajmera in view of Geng et al (“Geng” CN 110351624).
Regarding claim 2, Ajmera does not expressly disclose wherein the peripheral device comprises a wireless earphone case.
However, Geng discloses wherein the peripheral device comprises a wireless earphone case (see figs 1-5; e.g., earphone case). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective date of the present invention to include Geng’s teachings in Ajmera’s user interface as a well-known alternative in the art producing a predictable result.
Regarding claim 13, Ajmera does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more cavities are configured to form electrical contact with the one or more wireless earphones when the one or more wireless earphones are inserted into the one or more cavities.
However, Geng discloses wherein the one or more cavities are configured to form electrical contact with the one or more wireless earphones when the one or more wireless earphones are inserted into the one or more cavities (see paragraphs [0032]-[0050]; e.g., the headphone 8 is placed inside the headphone holder 6 of the headphone case and secured by the magnet 7, the charging tabs at the bottom of the headphone 8 are in contact with the pogopin charging pins 16, and the sensors inside the headphone case 1 are used for functional augmentation, and the corresponding sensors are provided as required.). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective date of the present invention to include Geng’s teachings in Ajmera’s user interface as a well-known alternative in the art producing a predictable result.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al (US 2019/0019491).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights