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 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 07/22/2024. 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, 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,539 in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1). Claims 1, 4, 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,539 B2 disclose every limitations claims 1, 7-9 of the instant application but do not expressly disclose the limitation “and changing an intensity setting of an equalization curve for the audio recording process in accordance with a current size of the geometric shape, wherein the current size of the geometric shape corresponds to a gain setting for a range of frequencies”. Suzuki et al disclose the limitation “and changing an intensity setting of an equalization curve for the audio recording process in accordance with a current size of the geometric shape, wherein the current size of the geometric shape corresponds to a gain setting for a range of frequencies”. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fining date of the application to use the equalization setting taught by Suzuki as equalization setting for US 12,045,539 B2. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an easy-to-use user interface which is easier to understand.
#18779637 – Instant Application
US 12,045,539 B2
Claim 1, a method of controlling an audio recording process, the method comprising:
controlling a display to present a geometric shape on the display;
receiving an indication of digit motion from a sensor system associated with the display, the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system, the indication including an indication of a direction of digit motion;
controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape either enlarges or contracts, depending on the direction of digit motion; and changing an intensity setting of an equalization curve for the audio recording process in accordance with a current size of the geometric shape, wherein the current size of the geometric shape corresponds to a gain setting for a range of frequencies.
1. A method of controlling headphones having external microphone signal pass-through functionality, the method comprising: controlling a display to present a geometric shape on the display; receiving an indication of digit motion from a sensor system associated with the display, the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system, the indication including an indication of a direction of digit motion relative to the display; controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape either enlarges or contracts, depending on the direction of digit motion; and changing a headphone transparency setting according to a current size of the geometric shape, wherein the headphone transparency setting corresponds to both an external microphone signal gain setting and a media signal gain setting, wherein the current size of the geometric shape also corresponds to an automatic noise cancellation setting and wherein a smallest size of the geometric shape corresponds with a headphone transparency setting having a smallest external microphone signal gain setting and an automatic noise cancellation setting in which automatic noise cancellation is enabled.
claim 7, the method of claim 1, wherein the geometric shape comprises a circle
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the geometric shape comprises a circle.
claim 8, One or more non-transitory media having software stored thereon, the software including instructions for controlling one or more devices to perform the method of claim 1.
6. One or more non-transitory media having software stored thereon, the software including instructions for controlling one or more devices to perform the method of claim 1.
claim 9, an apparatus, comprising:
a display;
a sensor system associated with the display, the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system; and
a control system comprising one or more processors, the control system being configured to perform the method of claim 1.
7. An apparatus, comprising:
a display;
a sensor system associated with the display, the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system; and
a control system comprising one or more processors, the control system being configured to perform the method of claim 1.
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) 1-2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2008/0297484 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park et al disclose a method of controlling an audio recording process (Park et al; Fig 3; Para [0025]), the method comprising: controlling a display to present a geometric shape on the display (Park et al; Fig 3; step 310; display operation image interpreted as controlling a display to present a geometric shape on the display); receiving an indication of digit motion from a sensor system associated with the display (Park et al; Fig 3; step 320), the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system, the indication including an indication of a direction of digit motion (Park et al; Fig 3; Para [0029]-[0030]); controlling the display to present a images indicating that the geometric shape either enlarges or contracts, depending on the direction of digit motion (Park et al; Fig 3; Para [0030]; image enlarge based on direction of detected gesture); and changing an intensity setting (Park et al; Fig 3; Para [0024]); but do not expressly disclose controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape either enlarges or contracts, depending on the direction of digit motion; of an equalization curve for the audio recording process in accordance with a current size of the geometric shape, wherein the current size of the geometric shape corresponds to a gain setting for a range of frequencies. However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al disclose a method further comprising, controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape either enlarges or contracts, depending on the direction of digit motion (Suzuki et al; Fig 9; Para [0210]-[0212]; images CR12 changes to CR12’ interpreted as sequences of images depend on digit motion); and changing an intensity setting of an equalization curve for the audio recording process in accordance with a current size of the geometric shape (Suzuki et al; Fig 9; Para [0210]-[0212]; changing intensity setting of equalizer curve C31-C41), wherein the current size of the geometric shape corresponds to a gain setting for a range of frequencies (Suzuki et al; Fig 9; Para [0210]-[0212]; change current size of geometric shape CR12 corresponding to a gain setting of frequencies curve C31 and C41). 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 equalization setting control taught by Suzuki as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an easy-to-use user interface which is easier to understand (Suzuki et al; Para [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the intensity setting corresponds with a shape of the equalization curve. However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al disclose a method wherein the intensity setting corresponds with a shape of the equalization curve (Suzuki et al; Fig 9; Para [0210]-[0212]; change intensity of equalization curve C31 to C41). 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 equalization setting control taught by Suzuki as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an easy-to-use user interface which is easier to understand (Suzuki et al; Para [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Park et al disclose one or more non-transitory media having software stored thereon, the software including instructions for controlling one or more devices to perform (Park et al; Para [0035]); but do not expressly disclose the method of claim 1. However, in the same field of endeavor, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1. 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 method of claim 1 as audio controller in the device taught by Suzuki. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an easy-to-use user interface which is easier to understand (Suzuki et al; Para [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Park et al disclose an apparatus (Park et al; Fig 2), comprising: a display (Park et al; Fig 2; touchscreen 210); a sensor system associated with the display (Park et al; Fig 2; Para [0024][0026]), the sensor system comprising a touch sensor system or a gesture sensor system (Park et al; Fig 2; Para [0024][0026]); and a control system comprising one or more processors, the control system being configured to perform (Park et al; Fig 2; control unit 240); but do not expressly disclose the method of claim 1. However, in the same field of endeavor, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1. 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 method of claim 1 as audio controller in the device taught by Suzuki. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an easy-to-use user interface which is easier to understand (Suzuki et al; Para [0012]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2008/0297484 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1) and further in view of Huang (US 2009/0290725 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the equalization curve comprises a selectable pre-set equalization curve. However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses a method wherein the equalization curve comprises a selectable pre-set equalization curve (Huang et al; Fig 5; Para [0048]). 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 equalization setting control taught by Huang as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to improve equalizing manipulation (Huang; Para [0005]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2008/0297484 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1) and further in view of Huang (US 2009/0290725 A1) and further in view of Sassi (US 2014/0173519 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al and further in view of Huang disclose the method of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose further comprising controlling the display to present a plurality of icons on the display, each icon of the plurality of icons corresponding to a different pre-set equalization curve. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sassi disclose a method further comprising controlling the display to present a plurality of icons on the display (Sassi; Fig 2C; Para [0092]; pop jazz rock areas are interpreted as plurality of icons on the display), each icon of the plurality of icons corresponding to a different pre-set equalization curve (Sassi; Fig 2C; Para [0092]; [0094]; each equalizer indicator corresponds to different equalization curve). 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 equalization setting control taught by Sassi as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to allow inexperienced users of graphic equalizers to see how the settings of a conventional equalizer would be configured to achieve a particular sound (Sassi; Para [0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al and further in view of Huang et further in view of Sassi disclose the method of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the sensor system, an indication of a touch in an area of the display corresponding with an icon; and selecting a pre-set equalization curve corresponding to the icon. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sassi disclose a method further comprising receiving, from the sensor system, an indication of a touch in an area of the display corresponding with an icon (Sassi; Fig 2C; Para [0080]; [0094]; detection of the touch input interpreted as sensor system); and selecting a pre-set equalization curve corresponding to the icon (Sassi; Fig 2C; Para [0092]; [0094]; each equalizer indicator correspond to different equalization curve). 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 equalization setting control taught by Sassi as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to allow inexperienced users of graphic equalizers to see how the settings of a conventional equalizer would be configured to achieve a particular sound (Sassi; Para [0094]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2008/0297484 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1) and further in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0223298 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method comprises controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape enlarges when the direction of digit motion is towards an upper portion of the display. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim et al disclose a method wherein the method comprises controlling the display to present a sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape enlarges when the direction of digit motion is towards an upper portion of the display (Kim et al; Fig 3H- Fig 3I; controlling display to present sequence of images indicating that the geometric shape enlarges when direction of digit motion is towards an upper portion of the display). 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 display control taught by Kim as display control in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to edit displayed content intuitively (Kim et al; Para [0007]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2008/0297484 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2015/0169280 A1) and further in view of Sassi (US 2014/0173519 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Park et al in view of Suzuki et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the geometric shape comprises a circle. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sassi disclose a method wherein the geometric shape comprises a circle (Sassi; Para [0036]). 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 equalization setting control taught by Sassi as equalization setter in the device taught by Park. The motivation to do so would have been to allow inexperienced users of graphic equalizers to see how the settings of a conventional equalizer would be configured to achieve a particular sound (Sassi; Para [0094]).
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