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 .
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 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9978390 B2;
Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10332537 B2;
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10714115 B2;
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11545169 B2; and
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12080314 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious wording variation of the patented claim language. The patented claim language discloses the identification of available computational power of a second playback device, and sending voice signals to be processed by the second playback device when the second playback device has more available computational power than the first playback device. Whereas the present claim language discloses an identification of available computation power of the second device not exceeding the first playback device, and processing the voice signal with the first playback device when the available computational power of the second playback device does not exceed the first playback device. Both claim sets are essentially disclosing the same function of the voice processing system in different wording variants
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The general concept of a first playback device (#100) comprising:
at least one processor (#110);
at least one microphone (#130; Par.[0030]);
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (#120; Par.[0029]); and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first playback device to:
receive, via the at least one microphone, a set of voice signals (fig.5 #610; [0056]);
process the set of voice signals using a first set of audio processing algorithms to determine a set of signal measures corresponding to the set of voice signals (fig.5 #640; Par.[0059]);
identify, from the set of voice signals, at least one voice signal that is to be processed with a second set of audio processing algorithms (fig.5 #650; Par.[0060]), and
processing the at least one voice signal using the second set of processing algorithms using a second playback device (#200) that has available processing power (fig.5 #660; Par.[0061][0048]); as evidenced by Anderson (US 20160049147 A1).
However, the Examiner has not found prior art that teaches or suggests the modification of Anderson in order to provide:
“determine that an amount of available computational power of a second playback device exceeds an amount of available computational power of the first playback device; and
based on determining that the amount of available computational power of the second playback device exceeds the amount of available computational power of the first playback device, cause the second playback device to process the at least one voice signal using the second set of audio processing algorithms”
Other prior art has been cited herein regarding distributing processing in audio capturing networks, however the other prior art of record also fails to teach or provide suggestion to arrive the combination of the elements and steps presented in the independent claims, again when said elements or steps are collectively considered in regards to each claim. For at least the reasons listed above, the dependent claims are also allowed in view of their respective dependencies upon the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached on (571-272-7848. 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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights