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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 07/18/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 07/18/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,304,006 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 and claim 7 disclose each and every limitation of claim 1 of the instant application. The dependent claims also read on the dependent claims of the instant application.
#18777128
US 11,304,006 B2
1. an audio device comprising:
an acoustic transducer electrically connected to circuitry of the audio device; and
a sensor electrically connected to the circuitry of the audio device, wherein the sensor is configured to receive a user input;
wherein the circuitry is configured to: in response to receiving the user input at the sensor of the audio device, receive a wireless audio data stream of a plurality of wireless audio data streams, wherein the acoustic transducer renders a sound based on the wireless audio data stream; and
in response to each receipt of the user input, cycle through receiving each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order.
6. The audio device of claim 1, wherein the determined order is based on a favorites list corresponding to a specific environment.
1. An audio device comprising: an antenna arranged to discover a plurality of wireless audio data streams, the plurality of wireless audio data streams using a digital packet-based wireless data protocol; circuitry configured to switch the audio device to a broadcast discovery mode upon receiving an indication, and in response, the circuitry is further configured to generate a first audio signal corresponding to a first wireless audio data stream of the plurality of wireless audio data streams; an acoustic transducer electrically connected to the circuitry, the acoustic transducer configured to render a first sound using the first audio signal; and a sensor electrically connected to the circuitry, the sensor configured to receive user input; wherein upon receiving the user input via the sensor, the circuitry is configured to generate a second audio signal corresponding to a second wireless audio data stream of the plurality of wireless audio data streams and the acoustic transducer is configured to render a second sound using the second audio signal, and wherein the indication is selected from at least one of (i) a user input via the sensor or (ii) other sensor data related to the position of the audio device in a known environment.
7. The audio device of claim 1, wherein each receipt of the user input cycles through each of the wireless audio data streams of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order.
2. The audio device of claim 1, wherein the digital packet-based wireless data protocol is a Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE) protocol.
claim 2, the audio device of claim 1, wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams.
8. The audio device of claim 7, wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each wireless audio data stream of the plurality of wireless audio data streams.
Regarding claim 3, the audio device of claim 1, wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on prior user behavior.
9. The audio device of claim 7, wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on a user's prior behavior.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavelle et al disclose an audio device (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2 audio device 152) comprising: an acoustic transducer electrically connected to circuitry of the audio device (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2 left and right speaker 282; 284 connected to circuitry 127); and a sensor electrically connected to the circuitry of the audio device (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; sensor 252), wherein the sensor is configured to receive a user input (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]); wherein the circuitry is configured to: in response to receiving the user input at the sensor of the audio device, receive a wireless audio data stream of a plurality of wireless audio data streams (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]), wherein the acoustic transducer renders a sound based on the wireless audio data stream (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]); but do not expressly disclose and in response to each receipt of the user input, cycle through receiving each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kihm disclose a device comprising in response to each receipt of the user input, cycle through receiving each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order (Kihm; Para [0067][0089]; toggle through the audio streams interpreted as cycling through the audio streams in a predefined order). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Kihm et al as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve comfort and ergonomics of the audio device (Kihm; Para [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Lavelle et al disclose a method of selecting a wireless audio data stream using an audio device (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2), the method comprising: receiving a user input at a sensor of the audio device (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]); in response to receiving the user input, receiving a wireless audio data stream of a plurality of wireless audio data streams (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]); in response to receiving the wireless audio data stream (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]), rendering, via an acoustic transducer, a sound based on the wireless audio data stream (Lavelle et al ; Fig 2; Para [0054]); and but do not expressly disclose in response to each receipt of the user input, cycling through receiving each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kihm disclose a method comprising in response to each receipt of the user input, cycle through receiving each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams in a determined order (Kihm; Para [0067][0089]; toggle through the audio streams interpreted as cycling through the audio streams in a predefined order). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Kihm et al as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve comfort and ergonomics of the audio device (Kihm; Para [0012]).
Claim(s) 2, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Koriyama (US 2016/0128121 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams. However, in the same field of endeavor, Koriyama discloses a device wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Koriyama; Para [0073][0007][0034][0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Koriyama as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to accurately determine the nearest electronic device in establishing a pairing with an electronic device to be a target for remote control (Koriyama; Para [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams. However, in the same field of endeavor, Koriyama discloses a method wherein the determined order is based at least in part on a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Koriyama; Para [0073][0007][0034][0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Koriyama as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to accurately determine the nearest electronic device in establishing a pairing with an electronic device to be a target for remote control (Koriyama; Para [0006]).
Claim(s) 3-5, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Reily et al (US 2020/0264835 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on prior user behavior. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a device wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on prior user behavior (Reily et al; Para [0024][0065][0055][0056]; list of audio sources based on prior behavior). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reilly; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Reily disclose the audio device of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user data corresponding to a specific location, a specific environment, or a specific activity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a device wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user data corresponding to a specific location, a specific environment, or a specific activity (Reily et al; Para [0024][0063]-[0065][0055][0056]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reilly; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Reily disclose the audio device of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user behavior corresponding to past connections, total connection time to one of the plurality of wireless audio data streams, proximity each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and/or sensor data obtained from the sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a device wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user behavior corresponding to past connections, total connection time to one of the plurality of wireless audio data streams, proximity each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and/or sensor data obtained from the sensor (Reily et al; Para [0024][0063]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reilly; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on prior user behavior. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a method wherein the determined order is selected based at least in part on prior user behavior (Reily et al; Para [0024][0065][0055][0056]; list of audio sources based on prior behavior). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reilly; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Reily disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user data corresponding to a specific location, a specific environment, or a specific activity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a method wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user data corresponding to a specific location, a specific environment, or a specific activity (Reily et al; Para [0024][0063]-[0065][0055][0056]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reily; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Reily disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user behavior corresponding to past connections, total connection time to one of the plurality of wireless audio data streams, proximity each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and/or sensor data obtained from the sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reily discloses a method wherein the prior user behavior corresponds to logged user behavior corresponding to past connections, total connection time to one of the plurality of wireless audio data streams, proximity each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and/or sensor data obtained from the sensor (Reily et al; Para [0024][0063]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Reily as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a better audio experience and a better overall user experience (Reilly; Para [0005]).
Claim(s) 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Davis et al (US 2020/0252731 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is based on a favorites list corresponding to a specific environment. However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis et al disclose a device wherein the determined order is based on a favorites list corresponding to a specific environment (Davis et al; Para [0103]-[0105]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Davis as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 19, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is based on a favorites list corresponding to a specific environment. However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis et al disclose a method wherein the determined order is based on a favorites list corresponding to a specific environment (Davis et al; Para [0103]-[0105]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Davis as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user’s experience.
Claim(s) 7-8, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Hulvey et al (US 2019/0107995 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is produced based on advertising packets corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hulvey et al disclose a device wherein the determined order is produced based on advertising packets corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Hulvey as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to discover device identity and a full connection to discover device capability (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Hulvey disclose the audio device of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the advertising packets include an address indicative of a device type or a device class of each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and wherein the determined order is produced based on the device type or the device class of each of the plurality of source devices. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hulvey et al disclose a device wherein the advertising packets include an address indicative of a device type or a device class of each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]), and wherein the determined order is produced based on the device type or the device class of each of the plurality of source devices (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Hulvey as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to discover device identity and a full connection to discover device capability (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the determined order is produced based on advertising packets corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hulvey et al disclose a method wherein the determined order is produced based on advertising packets corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Hulvey as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to discover device identity and a full connection to discover device capability (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]).
Regarding claim 21, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Hulvey disclose the method of claim 20, but do not expressly disclose wherein the advertising packets include an address indicative of a device type or a device class of each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams, and wherein the determined order is produced based on the device type or the device class of each of the plurality of source devices. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hulvey et al disclose a method wherein the advertising packets include an address indicative of a device type or a device class of each of a plurality of source devices corresponding to the plurality of wireless audio data streams (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]), and wherein the determined order is produced based on the device type or the device class of each of the plurality of source devices (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Hulvey as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to discover device identity and a full connection to discover device capability (Hulvey et al; Para [0023]).
Claim(s) 9-11, 13, 22-24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Mathur (WO 2016/172457 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the sound comprises audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a device wherein the sound comprises audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Mathur; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the audio device of claim 9, but do not expressly disclose wherein, in response to receiving the user input, the circuitry is further configured to generate a second sound indicating which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a device wherein, in response to receiving the user input, the circuitry is further configured to generate a second sound indicating which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active (Mathur; Para [0021][0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the audio device of claim 10, but do not expressly disclose wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound prior to rendering the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a device wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound prior to rendering the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Mathur; Para [0032][0019]; sound alert alerting of new sound source interpreted as second sound received before the new sound source). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the audio device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the sound indicates which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a device wherein the sound indicates which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active (Mathur; Para [0019]; sound notification of active audio stream). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 22, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the sound comprises audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a method wherein the sound comprises audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Mathur; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 23, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the method of claim 22, but do not expressly disclose further comprising, in response to receiving the user input, generating a second sound indicating which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a method further comprising, in response to receiving the user input, generating a second sound indicating which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active (Mathur; Para [0021][0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 24, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the method of claim 23, but do not expressly disclose wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound prior to rendering the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a method wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound prior to rendering the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Mathur; Para [0032][0019]; sound alert alerting of new sound source interpreted as second sound received before the new sound source). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the sound indicates which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mathur disclose a method wherein the sound indicates which of the plurality of wireless audio data streams is active (Mathur; Para [0019]; sound notification of active audio stream). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Mathur as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the overall experience of the user (Mathur; Para [0003]).
Claim(s) 12, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle et al (US 2005/0020320 A1) in view of Kihm (US 2014/0321662 A1) and further in view of Mathur (WO 2016/172457 A1) and further in view of Lambourne et al (US 2020/0076939 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the audio device of claim 10, but do not expressly disclose wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound simultaneously to the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lambourne disclose a device wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound simultaneously to the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Lambourne; Para [0115]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Lambourne as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an improved user experience (Lambourne; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 25, Lavelle et al in view of Kihm and further in view of Mathur disclose the method of claim 23, but not expressly disclose wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound simultaneously to the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lambourne disclose a method wherein the acoustic transducer renders the second sound simultaneously to the sound comprising the audio content contained within the wireless audio data stream (Lambourne; Para [0115]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the audio stream selection taught by Lambourne as audio stream selection for the audio system taught by Lavelle. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an improved user experience (Lambourne; Para [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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 Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights