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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of this application’s status as a continuation of application 17/856,337 now patent 12,063,729 filed on 07/01/2022, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. 63/217,740 filed on 07/01/2021.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12063729 in view of US2021/0195716A1 hereinafter “Rasmussen” and WO2009/150592A1 hereinafter “Mason”.
Regarding claims 1-20, the prior patent does not claim all the claim limitations, however, they are rendered obvious in view of the prior art rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2021/0195716A1 hereinafter “Rasmussen”
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen discloses a system (¶71L1: a light show system) comprising:
a lighting device (¶71L2-3: a plurality of dependent lights) that is communicatively coupled to one or more playback devices of a media playback system (¶714L3: a plurality of speakers);
at least one processor (¶29L2: a processors) ;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶29L3-4: a non-volatile memory); and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor (¶31L1-2: processor may execute program stored in memory), cause the system to:
detect a command to play back audio content (¶55L7-8: a user input may trigger a first music file selection);
based on the command, cause a given playback device of the media playback system to play back the audio content (¶66L13-14: speaker plays an audio file);
while the given playback device is playing back the audio content, determine given lighting behavior that is to be produced by the lighting device, wherein
the given lighting behavior is based on
(i) a device setting of a playback device of the media playback system (¶66L11-13: master light signals to the dependent lights to play a light show) or
(ii) one or more characteristics of the audio content (¶48L4-22: analyzes the music input and generates metadata for MFF file; ¶50L27-29: after generating a MFF, the hub may signal one or more lights to provide a synchronized lighting show); and
based on determining the given lighting behavior, cause the lighting device to transition from producing first lighting behavior to producing second lighting behavior in synchrony with playback of the audio content by the given playback device, wherein the second lighting behavior comprises the given lighting behavior (¶66L12-15: play a light show in conjunction with the MFF while the speakers plays an audio file).
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the given lighting behavior comprises one or more of
(i) a given lighting effect, (ii) a given lighting scene, or (iii) a given lighting animation. (¶74L1-4: one or more settings of the light show, including, color, sound, intensity, brightness, contrast and the like)
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein
the given playback device is a first playback device (¶64L3: dependent light), and wherein the given lighting behavior is determined based on a device setting of a second playback (¶64L2-3: a master light) that is communicatively coupled to the first playback device. (¶64L1-9: the master light broadcast an automated light show: the light show may adjust master light and dependent light)
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 3, wherein
the device setting of the second playback device comprises a brightness setting (¶74L1-4: one or more settings of the light show, including, color, sound, intensity, brightness, contrast and the like) of the second playback device, and wherein
the given lighting behavior corresponds to the brightness setting of the second playback device. (¶64L1-9: the master light broadcast an automated light show: the light show may adjust master light and dependent light)
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
obtain metadata associated with the audio content (¶48L1-22: analyzes the music input and generate metadata for the MFF file); and
based on the metadata, identify one or more colors associated with the audio content, wherein the given lighting behavior involves the one or more colors associated with the audio content. (¶59L1-30: adjust one or more lights according to the metadata in the MFF)
Regarding claim 10, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the media playback system is a first media playback system of a plurality of media playback systems, the system further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
cause a control device of the first media playback system to display an option to broadcast information about the given lighting behavior and the audio content (¶32L1-21: display provide a televisual screen for projecting images (e.g., a music video synchronized to a music file)) ;
based on an indication of a selection of the option to broadcast the information about the given lighting behavior and the audio content, cause the information about the given lighting behavior and the audio content to be transmitted to a remote computing device that is configured to communicate with the plurality of media playback systems (¶32L1-21: user interface may enable the computing system to receive information from user, such as user preference for light show); and
cause a control device of a second media playback system to display the information about the given lighting behavior and the audio content. (¶64L1-9: the master light broadcast an automated light show: the light show may adjust master light and dependent light)
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 1, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 2, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 2.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 3, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 3.
Regarding claims 14, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 5, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 3, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-9 and 16are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of WO2009/150592A1 hereinafter “Mason”
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen discloses the system of claim 1
Rasmussen does not expclitly disclose:
monitor the audio content for keywords that are each associated with a respective scene; and detect, in the audio content, a given keyword indicative of a given scene, wherein the given lighting behavior reflects the given scene.
Mason discloses a system and method for generation of ambient light wherein
monitor the audio content for keywords that are each associated with a respective scene (Page.6 L8-19: receive a speech input; captured via an audio input) ; and
detect, in the audio content, a given keyword indicative of a given scene (Page.6 L8-19: analyses the speech input to recognize words; compared recognizes words with a list of predetermined keywords), wherein the given lighting behavior reflects the given scene. (Page. 6 L18-19: link the keyword to a set of atmosphere parameter; Page.2 L17-24: parameter setting up green light when keyword wood is recognized)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system/method disclosed by Rasmussen to incorporate the keyword recognition system disclosed by Mason.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this would enhance the listening experience for the user. (Mason Page.1 L15-17)
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen in view of Mason hereinafter “Rasmussen/Mason” discloses the system of claim 6,
Rasmussen/Mason does not expclitly disclose:
the given keyword indicates a given direction, and wherein the given lighting behavior involves producing light in the given direction relative to a user in proximity of the lighting device.
Mason does disclose in Page.8 L13-24 that a number of different dynamic sequence of lighting can be associated with different scripts and different keywords.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system/method disclosed by Rasmussen/Mason to modify the script disclosed by Mason to have spatial difference for certain directional keywords.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this would enhance the listening experience for the user. (Mason Page.9 L17-30)
Regarding claim 8, Rasmussen/Mason discloses the system of claim 6,
Rasmussen/Mason does not expclitly disclose:
the given keyword indicates a time of day;
the given lighting behavior involves producing colors associated with the time of day; and the system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
cause at least one of the one or more playback devices to produce ambient sound associated with the time of day in synchrony with (i) playback of the audio content by the given playback device and (ii) production of the given lighting behavior by the lighting device.
Mason does disclose in Page.8 L13-24 that a number of different dynamic sequence of lighting can be associated with different scripts and different keywords to include different dynamic lighting and related sound.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system/method disclosed by Rasmussen/Mason to modify the script disclosed by Mason to have spatial difference for certain directional keywords.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this would enhance the listening experience for the user. (Mason Page.9 L17-30)
Regarding claim 9, Rasmussen/Mason discloses the system of claim 6
Rasmussen/Mason does not expclitly disclose:
the given keyword indicates an action, and wherein the given lighting behavior mimics the action.
Mason does disclose in Page.8 L13-24 that a number of different dynamic sequence of lighting can be associated with different scripts and different keywords to include different dynamic lighting and related sound.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system/method disclosed by Rasmussen/Mason to modify the script disclosed by Mason to have spatial difference for certain directional keywords.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this would enhance the listening experience for the user. (Mason Page.9 L17-30)
Regarding claims 16, the claims recites same limitation as recited in claim 6, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844