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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al, US PGPub 2024/0196130 “Agrawal et al”, in view of Walther et al, US PGPub 2021/0168552 “Walther et al”.
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal et al disclose a mobile device (figure 3, client device 102), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: query each device of a set of devices having an established Bluetooth connection with the mobile device (paragraphs 16, 23-25); perform a respective Bluetooth channel sounding procedure with each device of the set of devices to obtain a respective distance between each device and the mobile device (paragraphs 23-25); and select a device from the set of devices for audio playback based at least in part on the respective distances (paragraphs 33-35). Agrawal et al do not disclose detecting a respective audio codec corresponding to each device of the set of devices; and selecting a device from the set of devices for audio playback based at least in part on one or more audio quality parameters associated with the respective audio codecs.
Walther et al disclose detecting a respective audio codec corresponding to each device of the set of devices (see figures 7-10, 15, 16, paragraphs 90-93, 102-111; the examiner is interpreting the “audio codec” of the speaker, its inclusion in a particular speaker set up. A 5-channel set up has a different coding than a 2-channel set up); and select a device from the set of devices for audio playback based at least in part on the respective distances and one or more audio quality parameters associated with the respective audio codecs (paragraphs 90-93, 102-111, the upmixing and downmixing of signals forms a selection of devices. See figure 6 and its description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the speaker system of Agrawal et al with the audio codec selection technique described by Walther et al for the purpose of enhancing the audio experience of a moving listener.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is written in alternative form, therefore the prior art references meet the limitation of “the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to select the device based on one of a distance between the device and the mobile device” (Agrawal et al, paragraphs 33-35).
Regarding claim 3. the mobile device of claim 1, wherein, to select the device from the set of devices, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to determine, based at least in part on the one or more audio quality parameters, that the device is associated with a high-definition audio codec (see Walther et al, paragraph paragraphs 90-93, 102-111; examiner interprets high-definition audio codec with a 5 channel surround sound system).
Regarding claim 5, the mobile device of claim 1, wherein, to perform the respective Bluetooth channel sounding procedure, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: receive Bluetooth ranging data from each device of the set of devices; and monitor, using the Bluetooth ranging data, respective locations of each device of the set of devices (see Agarwal et al, paragraphs 33, 43-52, figure 5, wherein the distance is determined using UWB Time of flight and/or Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi RSSI measurements is equivalent to “Bluetooth ranging data”).
Regarding claim 6, the mobile device of claim 5, wherein, to monitor the respective locations of each device, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: obtain sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device; and correlate the sensor data with the Bluetooth ranging data to identify the respective locations of each device (see Agarwal et al, paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 7, the mobile device of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: detect a change in location of at least one device of the set of devices; and transfer the audio playback from the device to another device of the set of devices based at least in part on the change in the location (see Agarwal et al, figure 6 paragraphs 55-57).
Regarding claim 8, the mobile device of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: detect a change in location of the device; and communicate audio adjustment instructions to initiate a sound level adjustment of the audio playback based at least in part on the change in the location (see Agarwal et al, paragraphs 14, 20, 21, 24, 86).
Regarding claim 10, the mobile device of claim 1, wherein the one or more audio quality parameters comprise at least one of an audio quality, an audio profile, an interference level, or an on-air time (see for example Walther et al, figure 1, 7; the radiation characteristics of the loudspeakers equate to the audio profile).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al in view of Walther et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang, US PG Pub 2019/0191473.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al fails to disclose the mobile device of claim 1, wherein, to select the device from the set of devices, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to determine, based at least in part on the respective distances, that the device is closer to the mobile device than a second device of the set of devices. However, Zhang discloses selecting the device from the set of devices, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to determine, based at least in part on the respective distances, that the device is closer to the mobile device than a second device of the set of devices (see figure 7B, step 705). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al to include the teachings of Zhang, using distance as a selector of a Bluetooth device, for the purpose of choosing the device with the strongest signal, thereby enhancing the listening experience.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al in view of Walther et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doken, US PG Pub 2024/0334505.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al fails to disclose the mobile device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display, on a display device of the mobile device, a notification indicating that the device is selected as an active playback device for the audio playback. However, Doken discloses at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display, on a display device of the mobile device, a notification indicating that the device is selected as an active playback device for the audio playback in figure 9 (there is a listing of the Bluetooth devices and the connected device which is active). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al with the teachings of Doken for the purpose of prominently illustrating the active device for the user of the mobile device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al in view of Walther et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonde et al, US PG Pub 2022/0391164.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al fails to disclose the mobile device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to communicate audio adjustment instructions to initiate a sound level adjustment of the audio playback based at least in part on the respective distances and the one or more audio quality parameters. However, Bonde et al disclose in figure 1, a Bluetooth audio system with a mobile device 200, and audio playback devices 100 and 400. Paragraph 48 teaches that the mobile device 200 can do audio processing with audio data and transmit the processed audio data back to the audio playback devices. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the combination of Agrawal et al and Walther et al to include the aspect of mobile device audio adjustment of Bonde et al, resulting in the combination causing the mobile device to communicate audio adjustment instructions to initiate a sound level adjustment of the audio playback based at least in part on the respective distances and the one or more audio quality parameters, for the purpose of reducing the processing load on the audio playback devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seldess et al, US PG Pub 2021/0152935, Lai et al, US PG Pub 2018/0020308.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian T Pendleton whose telephone number is (571)272-7527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
Brian T. Pendleton
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425