DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 07/13/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 7-8 are canceled;
Claims 21-22 are newly added;
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16-17 and 19 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are pending;
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 03/31/2026 has been 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 1-6 and 9-22 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 the prior art rejection below.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9-22, 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 § 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 1-5, 10-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0195716A1 hereinafter “Rasmussen” in view of Machine Translation of KR102263492B1 hereinafter “Park”
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
(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).
Rasmussen does not disclose:
the given lighting behavior is based on
(i) contextual information available to the given playback device while the given playback device is playing back the audio content, wherein the contextual information is not associated with the audio content
Park discloses a lighting system wherein whether information is applied to light emitting control information thus discloses:
the given lighting behavior is based on
(i) contextual information available to the given playback device while the given playback device is playing back the audio content, wherein the contextual information is not associated with the audio content (¶79L1-7: the second sensor performs the function of generating weather information around the performance hall; ¶96L1-4: a process of reflecting ambient weather information to light emission control)
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 weather information into the light emission control based on audio content as disclosed by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this would allow the intensity of the light be changed based on the weather, for example when it changes from a sunny night to a cloudy night. (Park ¶9L1-3)
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen in view Park hereinafter “Rasmussen/Park” discloses in Rasmussen 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/Park discloses in Rasmussen the system of claim 1, wherein
the given playback device is a first playback device (¶64L3: dependent light), and wherein the contextual information comprises 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) (Note: since the master light broadcast the automated light show (which is based on in part on the weather information as disclosed by combination of Rasmussen/Park; the master is broadcasting its setting to the dependent lights)
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen/Park discloses in Rasmussen 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/Park discloses in Rasmussen 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/Park discloses in Rasmussen 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.
Regarding claim 21, Rasmussen/Park discloses in Park the system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
cause the system to receive the contextual information from a computing device. (¶79L1-7: the second sensor performs the function of generating weather information around the performance hall)
Regarding claim 22, Rasmussen/Park discloses in Park the system of claim 1, wherein
the contextual information comprises one or more of a time of day, weather information (¶79L1-7: the second sensor performs the function of generating weather information around the performance hall), a geographical location of the given playback device, calendar information for a user associated with the given playback device, ambient lighting information within an environment surrounding the given playback device, task lists of a user associated with the given playback device, a device setting of a computing device operatively associated with the media playback system, background audio in the environment surrounding the given playback device that is not the audio content, or combinations thereof.
Claims 6, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen/Park in view of WO2009/150592A1 hereinafter “Mason”
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen/Park discloses the system of claim 1
Rasmussen/Park does not exactly 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 program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the given lighting behavior comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to, based on the given keyword indicative of the given scene, determine the given lighting behavior, 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/Park 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 9, Rasmussen/Park in view of Mason hereinafter “Rasmussen/Park/Mason” discloses the system of claim 6
Rasmussen/Park/Mason does not explicitly 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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 2845
Prosecution Insights