Detailed Action
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 7/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected
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 9/04/2025 2/28/2025 12/09/2024 7/9/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites,
“1. A method, comprising: during a call between a cellular-capable device and an accessory device,
listening, by a controller device, for an audio input from the accessory device via a network connection between the controller device and the accessory device; [a human can listen for audio input using auditory processing in the human mind.]
and in accordance with a determination that the audio input was identified,
transmitting, by the controller device, an instruction to end the call with the accessory device, [a human can transmit an instruction to end a call by physically pressing a button] the instruction transmitted to the accessory device via the network connection or to the cellular-capable device via a different network connection.
As to independent Claim 12, Claim 12 is a computer-readable storage medium Claim with limitation similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to independent Claim 15, Claim 15 is a device claim with limitation similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 12, 15 recites additional elements of “storage medium” “memory” and “processor” For example, in [0073] of the as filed specification, there is description of “executing collectively on one or more processors, by hardware, or combinations thereof. As noted above, the code may be stored on a computer-readable storage medium…” and in [0056] “The memory 514 may store program instructions that are loadable and executable on the processor…” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory and storage is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites,
“2. The method of claim 1, wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended. [This relates to a human identifying end word meant for a call to be ended using natural language processing.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 3 recites,
“3. The method of claim 2, wherein, during the call, the controller device only listens for the end word. [This relates to a human glistening for an end word.] Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 4 recites,
“4. The method of claim 2, wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word. [This relates to a human not processing audio except the end word.] Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 5 recites,
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the end word comprises at least one of “hang up,” or “end call.” [This relates to a human hearing and word] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 6 recites,
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: establishing, by the controller device, the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device based at least in part on identifying a wake word. [This relates to a human establishing a call by pressing a button.] Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 7 recites,
“7. The method of claim 6, wherein the wake word identifies an action for the controller device to perform. [This relates to a human identifying an action for a device using language processing in the human mind.] Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 8 recites,
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the action comprises transmission of an instruction for establishing the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device.[This relates to a human establishing a call by pressing a button ] Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 9 recites,
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the wake word corresponds to a first software ecosystem of the controller device, and does not correspond to a second software ecosystem of the accessory device. Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 10 recites,
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the accessory device is a third-party device that is built for a first entity that is different from a second entity for which the controller device is built. Devices are noted as additional limitations
Dependent claim 11 recites,
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the accessory device is configured to implement a software development kit provided by the second entity associated with the controller device. [This relates to a human implementing a software development kit] accessory devices are additional limitations
Dependent claim 13 recites,
13. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device ignores all audio except the end word, when detected. [This relates to a human identifying that a call has been ended using context and language processing in the human mind] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 14 recites,
14. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word. [This relates to a human identifying that a call has been ended using context and language processing in the human mind] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 16 recites,
16. The controller device of claim 15, wherein the cellular-capable device is configured to relay the call from a service provider to the accessory device. accessory devices are additional limitations
Dependent claim 17 recites,
17. The controller device of claim 15, wherein the controller device is one of a plurality of hub devices in a home environment. Hub devices are additional limitations
Dependent claim 18 recites,
18. The controller device of claim 15, wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended. [This relates to a human processing an end word that indicates a call has ended] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 19 recites,
19. The controller device of claim 18, wherein, during the call, the controller device ignores all audio except the end word, when detected. [This relates to a human ignoring all audio except the end word] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 20 recites,
20. The controller device of claim 18, wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word. [This relates to a human processing only an end word.] No additional limitations present.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton (U.S. Patent Number US 20140031015 A1), in view of Batta (U.S. Patent Number US 11064281 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bolton teaches 1. A method, comprising: during a call between a cellular-capable device and an accessory device, listening, by a controller device, for an audio input from the accessory device via a network connection between the controller device and the accessory device; (see Bolton [0100] At block 618, MCD 202 can determine whether the call should be disconnected. In one embodiment, the call can become disconnected without ever being truly connected (e.g., if the network or the called party fails to respond during placing the call at block 612 and the call does not divert to a voice mail or other automated answering system). In other embodiments, MCD 202 can receive a command from accessory 204 indicating that the call should be ended, e.g., as described above. In still other embodiments, MCD 202 can detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network. As long as the call continues, MCD 202 can continue to execute blocks 614 and 616, allowing the user to speak and listen via accessory 204.”) transmitting, by the controller device, an instruction to end the call with the accessory device, (see Bolton [0062] The protocol can also include various Notify commands that can be sent by MCD 202 to accessory 204 upon the occurrence of certain events. Each event may have a different associated Notify command, or fewer Notify commands can be used, with each instance of a Notify command carrying associated data indicative of the particular event. In some embodiments, the protocol can also include one or more Register commands that accessory 204 can use to subscribe to or unsubscribe from receiving particular Notify commands or notifications of particular events. In other embodiments, MCD 202 can determine which notifications accessory 204 should receive based on the identification information provided by accessory 204. For instance, if accessory 204 indicates that it can operate in a duplex mode, MCD 202 may determine that accessory 204 should receive notifications as to when duplex mode should be entered or exited. In still other embodiments, a combination of accessory-driven subscription and determinations by the MCD can be used to control which notifications are sent to a particular accessory.”) (see Bolton [0063] The protocol can also include commands or groups of commands that support remote control of various operations of MCD 202 by accessory 204 For example, one remote control command can be a ButtonStatus command sendable by accessory 204 to MCD 202. This command can be sent with associated data in the form of a bitmask indicating the current state of various user-operable controls of accessory 204. Based on the bitmask, MCD 202 can take various actions. For example, certain bits of the bitmask can be associated with accepting an incoming call ("Answer"), diverting an incoming call to voice mail ("Divert"), or ending a current call ("Hang Up"); thus, accessory 204 can instruct MCD 202 to take any of these actions.”) the instruction transmitted to the accessory device via the network connection or to the cellular-capable device via a different network connection. (see Bolton [0067] Certain embodiments relate to the use of accessory 204 in conjunction with MCD 202 to provide a speaker phone, allowing a user to place and/or receive calls via MCD 202 by operating accessory 204. Referring again to FIG. 2, during a phone call, the user's voice can be detected by microphone 242 of accessory 204 and delivered as line-in to MCD 202. Within MCD 202, audio section 214 can route the line-in signal (with or without further processing) to RF section 212 to be transmitted across the telephone network, thus allowing the user to speak to the other party (or parties) to the call. Similarly, RF section 212 can receive signals corresponding to the other party's voice. These signals can be decoded (e.g., in RF section 212 and/or processor 206) and delivered as an audio signal to audio section 214. Audio section 214 can route this signal (with or without further processing) on the line-out path to accessory 204. Within accessory 204, audio section 236 can route the line-out signal to speaker 240, thus allowing the user to hear the other party. During such operations, built-in speaker 220 and built-in microphone 222 of MCD 202 can be disabled.”)
Bolton does not specifically teach and in accordance with a determination that the audio input was identified, However, Batta does teach this limitation (See Batta, (1:32-33) “identify the words spoken by a human user based on the received audio input.”)
Bolton and Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton to incorporate and in accordance with a determination that the audio input was identified of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
Regarding Claim 6, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 6. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Batta teaches further comprising: establishing, by the controller device, the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device based at least in part on identifying a wake word. (see Batta, (3:39-61) “(19) The present disclosure offers a system and method for sending and receiving data in which some or all of the data sent from the third device and received by the primary earbud is also received by the secondary earbud. The secondary earbud may monitor the second connection between the third device and the primary earbud and receive any data sent to the primary earbud. The secondary earbud may not transmit or send any data or information during this monitoring. This monitoring of the second connection may be referred to as “snooping” or “sniffing” the second connection. As the term is used herein, as one of skill in the art will understand, “snooping” or “sniffing” refers to third-party monitoring of a network connection, such as a wireless network connection, to determine data and/or one or more attributes regarding the network, such as stack information, baseband information, or any other such information. The secondary earbud may maintain information about the second wireless connection between the primary earbud and the smartphone, such as stack layer information and baseband-connection information. This wireless connection information may be sent from the primary earbud, or the secondary earbud may determine it by “snooping” on the second wireless connection.”) (see Batta, (7:56-8:5) “(36) The wakeword detection component 229 may process input the audio data —continuously, at intervals, and/or in response to a notification of the triggering of the VAD component—to determine if a keyword (e.g., a wakeword) is present in the audio data. In some embodiments, however, such as telephone calls or other such communications, no wakeword is needed or expected. Following detection of a wakeword, the devices 110a/110b may output audio data 210a, which may include at least a portion of the audio data, to the third device 112, which may in turn send corresponding output audio data 210b to the remote device(s) 120. The output audio data 210a may at least partially correspond to input audio 11 captured subsequent to input audio corresponding to the wakeword. That is, the input audio data may correspond to a spoken command that follows a spoken wakeword and optionally includes the spoken wakeword.”)
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate establishing, by the controller device, the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device based at least in part on identifying a wake word of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
Regarding Claim 7, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 7. The method of claim 6,
Furthermore, Batta teaches wherein the wake word identifies an action for the controller device to perform. (see BAtta, (9:1-16) “(39) The NLU component 260 attempts to make a semantic interpretation of the phrases or statements represented in the text data input therein. That is, the NLU component 260 determines one or more meanings associated with the phrases or statements represented in the text data based on individual words represented in the text data. The NLU component 260 may determine an intent of the command represented in the text data (e.g., an action that a user desires be performed) and/or pertinent pieces of information in the text data that allow a device (e.g., the devices 110a/110b, the remote device(s) 120, etc.) to execute the intent. For example, if the text data corresponds to “call mom,” the NLU component 260 may determine that the user intended to activate a telephone application on his/her device and to initiate a call with a contact matching the entity “mom.””)
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate the wake word identifies an action for the controller device to perform of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
Regarding Claim 8, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 8. The method of claim 7,
Furthermore, Batta teaches wherein the action comprises transmission of an instruction for establishing the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device. (see Batta, (9:1-16) “(39) The NLU component 260 attempts to make a semantic interpretation of the phrases or statements represented in the text data input therein. That is, the NLU component 260 determines one or more meanings associated with the phrases or statements represented in the text data based on individual words represented in the text data. The NLU component 260 may determine an intent of the command represented in the text data (e.g., an action that a user desires be performed) and/or pertinent pieces of information in the text data that allow a device (e.g., the devices 110a/110b, the remote device(s) 120, etc.) to execute the intent. For example, if the text data corresponds to “call mom,” the NLU component 260 may determine that the user intended to activate a telephone application on his/her device and to initiate a call with a contact matching the entity “mom.””)
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate the action comprises transmission of an instruction for establishing the call between the cellular-capable device and the accessory device of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12).
Regarding Claim 9, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 9. The method of claim 8,
Furthermore Batta teaches wherein the wake word corresponds to a first software ecosystem of the controller device, and does not correspond to a second software ecosystem of the accessory device. (See Batta Figures 8 and 9 Elements 110a-c )
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate the wake word corresponds to a first software ecosystem of the controller device, and does not correspond to a second software ecosystem of the accessory device of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
Regarding Claim 10, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 10. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Batta teaches wherein the accessory device is a third-party device that is built for a first entity that is different from a second entity for which the controller device is built. (See Batta Figures 8 and 9 Elements 110a-c )
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate wherein the accessory device is a third-party device that is built for a first entity that is different from a second entity for which the controller device is built of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
As to independent Claim 12, Claim 12 is a computer-readable storage medium claim with limitation similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, Bolton teaches 12. A computer-readable storage medium configured to store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a controller device, cause the controller device to perform operations comprising: (see Bolton [0164] “Computer programs incorporating some or all features described herein may be encoded on various computer readable storage media; suitable media include magnetic disk (including "hard" disk) or tape, optical storage media such as compact disk (CD) or DVD (digital versatile disk), flash memory, and the like. Computer readable storage media encoded with the program”)
As to independent Claim 15, Claim 15 is a device claim with limitation similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale Furthermore Bolton teaches 15. A controller device, comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: (see Bolton [0164] “Computer programs incorporating some or all features described herein may be encoded on various computer readable storage media; suitable media include magnetic disk (including "hard" disk) or tape, optical storage media such as compact disk (CD) or DVD (digital versatile disk), flash memory, and the like. Computer readable storage media encoded with the program”)
Regarding Claim 16, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 16. The controller device of claim 15,
Furthermore, Bolton teaches wherein the cellular-capable device is configured to relay the call from a service provider to the accessory device. (See Bolton [0152] “In some embodiments, an MCD may not be capable of receiving a voicemail from a mobile communication network. Instead, the MCD can receive a notification from the mobile communication network that a voicemail has been received. The voicemail can be stored by the mobile communication network, (e.g., using a server).”)
Regarding Claim 17, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 17. The controller device of claim 15,
Furthermore, Bolton teaches wherein the controller device is one of a plurality of hub devices in a home environment. (see Batta, See Batta Figures 8 and 9 Elements 110a-c
Bolton in view of Batta are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of combination of Bolton and Batta to incorporate the controller device is one of a plurality of hub devices in a home environment of Batta. This allows a device to execute the intent as recognized by Batta (9:10-12)
Claims 2-5, 11, 13, 14, 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton (U.S. Patent Number US 20140031015 A1), in view of Batta (U.S. Patent Number US 11064281 B1) and further in view of Yew (U.S. Patent Number US 20160337501 A1).
As to Claim 2, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 2. The method of claim 1
Bolton in view of Batta do not specifically teach, wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended. However, Yew does teach this limitation (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton to incorporate the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended of Batta. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
As to Claim 3, Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew teaches 3. The method of claim 2,
Furthermore, Yew teaches wherein, during the call, the controller device only listens for the end word. (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate during the call, the controller device only listens for the end word of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 4, Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew teaches 4. The method of claim 2,
Furthermore, Yew teaches wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word. (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 5, Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew 5. The method of claim 2,
Furthermore, Yew teaches wherein the end word comprises at least one of “hang up,” or “end call.” (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate the end word comprises at least one of “hang up,” or “end call.” of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 11, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 11. The method of claim 10,
Bolton in view of Batta do not specifically teach wherein the accessory device is configured to implement a software development kit provided by the second entity associated with the controller device. However, Yew does teach this limitation (see Yew [0160] While the invention has been described with respect to specific embodiments, one skilled in the art will recognize that numerous modifications are possible. For instance, audio signals can include any signal that provides a representation of sound in any format, including analog or digital formats. Audio signals can represent sound information any encoding desired, provided that the mobile communication device and accessory 204 are equipped with appropriate hardware and/or software for encoding and decoding the audio signals. Further, audio signals referred to as line-in and line-out may include monaural, stereo, and multi-channel (e.g., so-called "5.1" or "7.1") signals. Audio signal paths can be wired and/or wireless (e.g., using a Bluetooth audio standard).”)
Bolton in view of Batta and Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta to incorporate the accessory device is configured to implement a software development kit provided by the second entity associated with the controller device of Batta. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 13, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 13. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 12,
Bolton in view of Batta do not specifically teach wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device ignores all audio except the end word, when detected. However Yew does teach this limitation (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device ignores all audio except the end word, when detected of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 14, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 14. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 12,
Bolton in view of Batta do not specifically teach wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word. However Yew does teach this limitation (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended, and wherein, during the call, the controller device does not process any audio received from the accessory device via the network connection other than the end word of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 18, Bolton in view of Batta teaches 18. The controller device of claim 15,
Bolton in view of Batta does not specifically teach wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended. However, Yew does teach this limitation (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton to incorporate wherein the audio input comprises an end word configured to identify that the call is to be ended of Batta. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 19, Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew teaches 19. The controller device of claim 18,
Furthermore, Yew teaches wherein, during the call, the controller device ignores all audio except the end word, when detected. (see Yew, [0069] “At block 320, it is determined whether the call should be disconnected. For example, MCD 202 may detect that the call has been terminated by the mobile communication network (e.g., if the other party hangs up or the connection is lost). MCD 202 may also detect that its user has indicated that the call should end. For instance, in some embodiments, the user can press a “hang up” button on MCD 202; in other embodiments, the user can communicate a desire to end the call by operating accessory 204, which can send a remote-control command such as the ButtonStatus command described above to report the user's desire to MCD 202. Until such time as MCD 202 determines that the call should be disconnected, blocks 316 and 318 can continue to be executed. Once MCD 202 determines that the call should be ended, at block 322, MCD 202 can notify accessory 204 of the end of the call. In one embodiment, MCD 202 can send an “end call” notification message to indicate that the phone call is no longer in progress. Accessory 204 can interpret this notification as a signal to exit duplex mode (e.g., returning to the line-out-only mode) and to disable its echo cancellation.”)
Bolton in view of Batta and further in view of Yew are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of Bolton and Batta and Yew to incorporate during the call, the controller device only listens for the end word, when detected of Yew. This allows users to navigate calls through commands as recognized by Yew [0059].
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is a device claim with limitations similar to that of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN MICHELLE MASTERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1274. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Pierre Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
/KRISTEN MICHELLE MASTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659