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 .
Claims filed 07-12-2024
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carrigan U.S. Patent 11652510 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Carrigan teaches A method ((Fig 1 [800]) for managing audios between different devices, comprising: playing, via a first electronic device ((Fig 5A [100a] – touchpad), a first audio; (The 1st electronic device is a multifunctional device is connected to an output device [headphones], where music can be displayed on the 1st device and be listened on the output device, see para in Col 30 lines 8-10, 15-16. Also, different device [Fig 5A (100b) - cellphone] with the same capabilities as [100a] can connect to the output device but not be connected to sibling device, see para Col 30 lines 25-30) receiving, via a central device (Fig 5A [301] – headphones, para 167), a request to play a second audio from a second electronic device ((Fig 5A [100b], see para Col 30 15-16); determining, via the central device, whether the second audio is allowed to be played, according to a priority of the first audio and a priority of the second audio (Priority is dictated which types of audios has a higher level, whether low or high priority, see para Col 37 lines 13-19); playing or not playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio, after receiving a response from the central device. (The 1st device can request to play, or output, first audio [sound waves] to the central device [headphones - output & wearable device], which can receive requests, cease audio output through instructions before rerouting between electronic devices. See Col 37 lines 24 -35)
Regarding claim 2, Carrigan teaches wherein the first electronic device ((Fig 5A [100a]) and the second electronic device ((Fig 5A [100b]) have different operating systems ((Fig 1A [126], each multi-role device has a respective operating system such as iOS, Darwin, RTXC, LINUX, UNIX, OS X, WINDOWS and et, see Col 12 lines 64 - 67. Each device has a memory).
Regarding claim 9, Helm teaches an audio playback system, comprising: a first electronic device ((Fig 5A [100a] – touchpad), configured to play a first audio (In, Fig 5A, the first device plays music [first audio] through the headphone. The wearable audio output device is connected to multiple electronic devices, which constitutes a system that will play/pause back audio based on the user, see Col 1 line 15-18);
and a central device (Fig 5A [301] – headphones[Col 30 line 12]/wearable device[Col 37 line 20]), configured to: receive a request to play a second audio from a second electronic device ((Fig 5A [100b], see Col 30 15-16) (The 1st device can request to play, or output, first audio [sound waves] to the central device [headphones - output & wearable device], which can receive requests, cease audio output through instructions before rerouting between electronic devices. See Col 37 lines 24 -35);
and determine whether the second audio is allowed to be played, according to a priority of the first audio and a priority of the second audio (Priority is dictated which types of audios has a higher level, whether low or high priority, see Col 37 lines 13-19);
wherein the second electronic device is configured to play or not to play the second audio, after receiving a response from the central device. (The 2nd device receives instructions from wearable device to transmit the 2nd audio after satisfying the audio priority criteria, this is also referred to as rerouting the audio, see Col 36 lines 6, 10-18.)
Regarding claim 10, Helm teaches wherein the first electronic device ((Fig 5A [100a]) and the second electronic device ((Fig 5A [100b]) have different operating systems ((Fig 1A [126], each multi-role device has a respective operating system such as iOS, Darwin, RTXC, LINUX, UNIX, OS X, WINDOWS and et, see Col 12 lines 64 - 67. Each device has a memory).
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.
Claims 3-6, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan US Patent 11652510 B1 in view of Chang US Publication 20190369949 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Carrigan teaches further comprising: controlling, via the central device (Fig 5A [301], the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]) to add the second audio into the of the first electronic device to cause the first electronic device to stop playing the first audio, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is higher than the priority of the first audio (In Fig 6B, upon determination of the 2nd audio for the 2nd device satisfies the priority criteria); informing, via the central device, the second electronic device (Fig 5A [100b]) that the second audio is allowed to be played; and playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio. (The headphones send alerts the 1st device that the 2nd audio is allow to transmit, see para 170)
Carrigan does not explicitly teach top of a task stack
Chang discloses top of a task stack (when a new audio focus channel request to play, the focus manager determines whether the current audio A still plays if not, the new channel (b1) is pushed to the top of the stack, see para 24. In Fig 3 [b1, c1], para 46, an example audio channel c1 given priority over audio channel b1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaches of top of a task stack as taught by Chang in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for the audio focus can be preferentially assigned to the newly received play request, further ensuring that the audio for the new play request can be immediately played. In para 34, in Chang
Regarding claim 4, Carrigan teaches further comprising: notifying, via the central device (Fig 5A [301]), the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]) and playing, via the first electronic device, the first audio (In the case, where the first device request, via the central device, to reroute audio back to the first device, stops the 2nd audio & device, and plays first audio, via 1st device.),
Carrigan does not explicitly teach that the second audio has finished playing; removing, via the first electronic device, the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device; in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack after the second audio is removed from the task stack.
Chang discloses that the second audio has finished playing (after audio finishes playing, that next audio channel resumes, see para 24); removing, via the first electronic device, the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device (channel B pops out of the stack after it finish playing, see para 46); in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack (channel A resumes playing at the top of the stack) after the second audio is removed from the task stack. (In this example, channel B is the first electronic device and Channel A is the second electronic device, see para 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention removing, via the first electronic device, the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device; in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack after the second audio is removed from the task stack as taught by Chang in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been ensured that the unfinished audio is not lost while the audio for the new play request is played immediately, and is replayed after the audio for the newly added play request finishes being played, thereby improving user experience. In para 47, in Chang
Regarding claim 5, Carrigan teaches further comprising: receiving, via a central device (Fig 5A [301]); controlling, via the central device, the second electronic device (Fig 5A [100b]), in response to a determination that the priority of the third audio is higher than the priority of the second audio (met the priority criteria); informing the first electronic device, via the central device, that the audio is allowed to be played; and playing, via the first electronic device, the audio (Similar to claim 3 with the first & second device. Once the priority criteria is met, the ceases its output from the second device and allows the third device to play, in See Col 42 line 1-6.
Carrigan does not explicitly teach the third audio a request to play a third audio from the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]); determining, via the central device, whether the third is allowed to be played, according to the priority of the second audio and a priority of the third audio (receives input corresponding to the 2nd device after satisfying audio priority criteria);
Carrigan establishes a method [600, para 159 See Col 35 line 20-24] wherein the priority criteria, which audio has a higher or lower priority, must be satisfies before transmitting instructions to switch audios, see para 162 See Col 36 line 5-18. Each priority is categorized based the type of audio is being played, from games, videos, calls, and etc; See Col 37 line 10-19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention a request to play a third audio from the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]); determining, via the central device, whether the third audio is allowed to be played, according to the priority of the second audio and a priority of the third audio as taught by Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been providing additional control option while reducing the number of inputs needed to access such control options enhances the operability of the device and makes the user-device interface more efficient. See Col 37 line 67-68 – Col 38 line1-7. In a scenario where a third audio is requested, if it meets the priority criteria, instructions will be sent to cease transmitting the first and second audio, and the third audio will be allowed to play either through the 1st or 2nd device.
Carrigan does not explicitly teach to add the third audio into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio
Chang discloses to add the third audio into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio (Audio b1 releases the audio and pushed down the data stack, and the Audio c1 enters the top of the stack, see para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the third audio into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio as taught by Chang in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for the audio focus can be preferentially assigned to the newly received play request, further ensuring that the audio for the new play request can be immediately played. In para 34, in Chang
Regarding claim 11, wherein the central device (Fig 5A [301]) is further configured to: control the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]) to add the second audio into the top of a task stack of the first electronic device to cause the first electronic device to stop playing the first audio, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is higher than the priority of the first audio(In Fig 6B, upon determination of the 2nd audio for the 2nd device satisfies the priority criteria); and inform the second electronic device (Fig 5A [100b]) that the second audio is allowed to be played; wherein the second electronic device is configured to play the second audio (The headphones send alerts the 1st device that the 2nd audio is allow to transmit, see para 170).
Carrigan does not explicitly teach top of a task stack
Chang discloses top of a task stack (when a new audio focus channel request to play, the focus manager determines whether the current audio A still plays if not, the new channel (b1) is pushed to the top of the stack, see para 24. In Fig 3 [b1, c1], para 46, an example audio channel c1 given priority over audio channel b1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention top of a task stack as taught by Chang in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for the audio focus can be preferentially assigned to the newly received play request, further ensuring that the audio for the new play request can be immediately played. In para 34, in Chang
Regarding claim 12, Carrigan teaches wherein the central device (Fig 5A [301]) is further configured to notify the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]) that the second audio has finished playing; the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]) is further configured to:
Carrigan does not explicitly teach that the second audio has finished playing; remove the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device; and play the first audio, in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack after the second audio is removed from the task stack.
Chang discloses that the second audio has finished playing (after audio finishes playing, that next audio channel resumes, see para 24); remove the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device; and play the first audio (channel B pops out of the stack after it finish playing, see para 46), in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack after the second audio is removed from the task stack. (In this example, channel B is the first electronic device and Channel A is the second electronic device, see para 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention… that the second audio has finished playing; remove the second audio from the task stack of the first electronic device; and play the first audio in response to a determination that the first audio is on the top of the task stack after the second audio is removed from the task stack. The motivation would have been ensured that the unfinished audio is not lost while the audio for the new play request is played immediately, and is replayed after the audio for the newly added play request finishes being played, thereby improving user experience. In para 47, in Chang
Regarding claim 13 Carrigan teaches wherein the central device (Fig 5A [301]) is further configured to: from the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]); control the second electronic device (Fig 5A [100b]), in response to a determination that the priority of the audio is higher than the priority of the second audio (met the priority criteria); and inform the first electronic device that the audio is allowed to be played;
Carrigan does not explicitly teach the third; receive a request to play a third audio; determine whether the third audio is allowed to be played, according to the priority of the second audio and a priority of the third audio; wherein the first electronic device is configured to play the third audio.
Carrigan establishes a method [600, para 159 See Col 35 line 20-24] wherein the priority criteria, which audio has a higher or lower priority, must be satisfies before transmitting instructions to switch audios, see para 162 See Col 36 line 5-18. Each priority is categorized based the type of audio is being played, from games, videos, calls, and etc; see para 166 See Col 37 line 10-19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention a request to play a third audio from the first electronic device (Fig 5A [100a]); determining, via the central device, whether the third audio is allowed to be played, according to the priority of the second audio and a priority of the third audio as taught by Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been {the motivation is in para 169, “providing additional control option while reducing the number of inputs needed to access such control options enhances the operability of the device and makes the user-device interface more efficient. See Col 37 line 67-68 – Col 38 line1-7} So in a scenario where a third audio is requested, if it meets the priority criteria, instructions will be sent to cease transmitting the first and second audio, and the third audio will be allowed to play either through the 1st or 2nd device.
Carrigan does not explicitly teach to add the third into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio
Chang discloses to add the third audio into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio (Audio b1 releases the audio and pushed down the data stack, and the Audio c1 enters the top of the stack, see para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add the third audio into the top of a task stack of the second electronic device to cause the second electronic device to stop playing the second audio as taught by Chang in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for the audio focus can be preferentially assigned to the newly received play request, further ensuring that the audio for the new play request can be immediately played. In para 34, in Chang
Claims 6 - 7, 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan US Patent 11652510 B1 in view of Yu US Publication 20230297324 A1
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Carrigan does not explicitly teach further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio; and playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio, while the first electronic device is playing the first audio.
Yu discloses further comprising: informing the second electronic device ((Fig 1 [102] – Television), via the central device ((Fig 1 [101]), that the second audio (Fig 44A (Audio data C - MUSIC), is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio (Fig 44A [Audio data A] –device selection policy 2 shown in Table 8, whether the current audio data A, audio data B, and audio data C are allowed to be played by the television – see para 704); and playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio, while the first electronic device (Fig 1 [101] – mobile phone) is playing the first audio. (Once met the standard of the Audio Policy, it will play both audios on the second “slave” device, see para 706.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio; and playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio, while the first electronic device is playing the first audio as taught by Yu in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for master device (mobile phone) there are distortion having to play combined data into one device, so having a way to separate and combine different audio data to reduce distortion of a plurality of channels of audio data during cross-device play, and improves audio output quality in an audio switching scenario. See para 720 in Yu.
Regarding claim 7, Carrigan does not explicitly teach further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio.
Yu discloses further comprising: informing the second electronic device ((Fig 1 [102] – Television), via the central device, that the second audio (Fig 44A (Audio data B - WeChat) is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio (the second slave device is not allowed to play the second audio data, see para 707).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio as taught by Yu in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for master device (mobile phone) there are distortion having to play combined data into one device, so having a way to separate and combine different audio data to reduce distortion of a plurality of channels of audio data during cross-device play, and improves audio output quality in an audio switching scenario. See para 720 in Yu.
Regarding Claim 14, Carrigan does not explicitly teach wherein the central device is further configured to inform the second electronic device that the second audio is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio; wherein the second electronic device is configured to play the second audio, while the first electronic device is playing the first audio.
Yu discloses wherein the central device ((Fig 1 [101]) is further configured to inform the second electronic device ((Fig 1 [102] – Television) that the second audio (Fig 44A (Audio data C - MUSIC) is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio (Fig 44A [Audio data A] –device selection policy 2 shown in Table 8, whether the current audio data A, audio data B, and audio data C are allowed to be played by the television – see para 704); wherein the second electronic device is configured to play the second audio, while the first electronic device (Fig 1 [101] – mobile phone) is playing the first audio (once met the standard of the Audio Policy, it will play both audios on the second “slave” device, see para 706).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is allowed to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is the same as the priority of the first audio; and playing, via the second electronic device, the second audio, while the first electronic device is playing the first audio as taught by Yu in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for master device (mobile phone) there are distortion having to play combined data into one device, so having a way to separate and combine different audio data to reduce distortion of a plurality of channels of audio data during cross-device play, and improves audio output quality in an audio switching scenario. See para 720 in Yu.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the central device is further configured to inform the second electronic device that the second audio is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio.
Yu discloses wherein the central device is further configured to inform the second electronic device ((Fig 1 [102] – Television) that the second audio (Fig 44A (Audio data B - WeChat) is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio (the second slave device is not allowed to play the second audio data, see para 707).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention further comprising: informing the second electronic device, via the central device, that the second audio is rejected and not to be played, in response to a determination that the priority of the second audio is lower than the priority of the first audio as taught by Yu in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been for master device (mobile phone) there are distortion having to play combined data into one device, so having a way to separate and combine different audio data to reduce distortion of a plurality of channels of audio data during cross-device play, and improves audio output quality in an audio switching scenario. See para 720 in Yu.
Claims 8, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan US Patent 11652510 B1 in view of Denis US Publication 20230185521 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Carrigan does not explicitly teach wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority.
Denis discloses wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority (user can prioritize alarms over different audio streams, see para 31, prioritize fire alarms - para 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority as taught by Denis in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been to decide which available audio stream should be played based on the priority values associated to the audio stream attributes of the available audio streams. In Denis, para 24.
Regarding claim 16, Carrigan does not explicitly teach wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority.
Denis discloses wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority (user can prioritize alarms over different audio streams, see para 31, prioritize fire alarms - para 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention wherein an alarm sound has the highest priority as taught by Denis in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been decide which available audio stream should be played based on the priority values associated to the audio stream attributes of the available audio streams. In Denis, para 24
Regarding claim 17, Carrigan teaches wherein the central device ((Fig 5A [301]), the first electronic device ((Fig 5A [100a]), and the second electronic device ((Fig 5A [100b])
Carrigan does not explicitly teach mounted on a vehicle.
Denis discloses are mounted on a vehicle (Fig 1 [10], the audio rendering device can play one or more audio channels being connected to the vehicle, para 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention are mounted on a vehicle as taught by Denis in Carrigan’s invention. The motivation would have been improving the user experience, connecting to multiple audio stream source devices while keeping only one active audio stream source device, and switching between them. See para 2, in Denis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kannan US Patent 11740857 B2
McGaughy US Patent 10001966 B1
BARTON US Publication 20170060526 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights