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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub No 2020/0154204 A1 to Forth et al. (“Forth”).
As to claim 1, Forth discloses a method comprising: receiving, at an embedded computing device of a multi-zone audio amplifier, a plurality of audio inputs from a plurality of audio sources (see figures 1-2; pg. 1, ¶ 0009 - ¶ 0012; pg. 7, ¶ 0046 - ¶ 0047); mapping the plurality of audio inputs to a zone for the plurality of audio inputs to be available for the zone, wherein the zone represents a location having a speaker configured for playback of sound (see figures 1-6; pg. 6, ¶ 0044; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0059); selecting a particular audio input from the plurality of audio inputs for transmission to the zone; transmitting the particular audio input to the zone using an amplifier associated with the zone; and causing the speaker to play the particular audio input (see figures 1-2; pg. 3, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0021; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0059).
As to claim 2, Forth further discloses wherein the plurality of audio inputs includes zone-based audio inputs specifically for the zone and general audio inputs corresponding to audio inputs that are available to any zones including the zone (see pg. 4, ¶ 0025; pg. 5, ¶ 0040; pg. 8, ¶ 0057; pg. 9, ¶ 0059).
As to claim 3, Forth further discloses wherein the zone-based audio inputs are limited to being associated with the zone (see pg. 4, ¶ 0025; pg. 5, ¶ 0040; pg. 8, ¶ 0057; pg. 9, ¶ 0059).
As to claim 4, Forth further discloses wherein the general audio inputs are mapped to the multi-zone audio amplifier to be available for each of the zones associated with the multi-zone audio amplifier (see figures 1-2 and 4; pg. 3, ¶ 0020; pg. 4, ¶ 0025; pg. 6, ¶ 0044).
As to claim 17, Forth discloses a system comprising: an embedded computing device configured to: receive a plurality of audio inputs from a plurality of audio sources (see figures 1-2; pg. 1, ¶ 0009 - ¶ 0012); map the plurality of audio inputs to a zone for the plurality of audio inputs to be available for the zone, wherein the zone representing a location having a speaker configured for playback of sound (see figures 1-6; pg. 6, ¶ 0044; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0059); select a particular audio input from the plurality of audio inputs for transmission to the zone; transmit the particular audio input to the zone using an amplifier associated with the zone; and causing the speaker to play the particular audio input (see figures 1-2; pg. 3, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0021; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0059); and a plurality of amplifiers comprising the amplifier, each amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers associated with a respective speaker (see figures 1-2; pg. 1, ¶ 0011; pg. 3, ¶ 0019 - ¶ 0020).
As to claim 18, Forth further discloses wherein the embedded computing device is one of a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a microprocessor or a microcontroller (see pg. 1, ¶ 0010 - ¶ 0011).
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) 5-7, 9-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forth in view of US Patent Pub No 2022/0343935 A1 to Harris et al. (“Harris”).
As to claim 5, Forth discloses the method of claim 2.
Forth does not expressly disclose wherein the zone-based audio inputs are prioritized over the general audio inputs. However it does disclose zone-based audio inputs can be for example an alarms, in particular from an emergency broadcast system (see pg. 8, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0058). Prioritizing zone-based audio over general audio is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Forth, and further in view of Harris, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the playback devices being configured for different sound modes with different priorities, including prioritizing urgent sounds such as alarms or other safety alerts over audio playback such as music (see figures 7A-7B; pg. 1, ¶ 0024; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0123; pg. 13, ¶ 0132; pg. 14, ¶ 0146; pg. 15, ¶ 0149). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to ensure the listener receives important safety and security alarms even when other audio such as music is being played (Harris pg. 1, ¶ 0024; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0124).
As to claim 6, Forth in view of Harris further discloses wherein the particular audio input is selected based on a priority policy (Harris figures 7A-7F; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0123).
As to claim 7, Forth in view of Harris further discloses wherein the priority policy prioritizes audio inputs of the plurality of audio inputs based on types of the audio inputs (Harris figures 7A-7F; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0123).
As to claim 9, Forth in view of Harris further discloses wherein the priority policy is received from a user (Harris figures 7A-7F; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0123; pg. 13, ¶ 0131).
As to claim 10, Forth in view of Harris further discloses further comprising: mapping an audio input of the plurality of audio inputs to a second zone of a plurality of zones, wherein the plurality of zones comprises a first zone; and selecting a second particular audio input from the audio input for transmission to the second zone, the second particular audio input selected based on the priority policy, wherein the priority policy indicates a difference in priority for the first zone and the second zone (Forth pg. 5, ¶ 0040; pg. 7, ¶ 0048; Harris different modes in different rooms/zones, see pg. 15, ¶ 0157 - ¶ 0159; pg. 19, ¶ 0197 - ¶ 0199).
As to claim 11, Forth in view of Harris further discloses further comprising: assigning priorities to each audio input of the plurality of audio inputs based on a priority policy with respect to the zone, wherein the priorities are stored in a memory (Forth pg. 8, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0058; Harris pg. 5, ¶ 0053; pg. 9, ¶ 0089; pg. 12, ¶ 0122; pg. 13, ¶ 0130).
As to claim 19, Forth in view of Harris further discloses wherein the particular audio input is selected based on a priority policy (Harris figures 7A-7F; pg. 12, ¶ 0122 - ¶ 0123).
As to claim 20, Forth in view of Harris further discloses wherein the embedded computing device is further configured to: assign priorities to each audio input of the plurality of audio inputs based on a priority policy with respect to the zone, wherein the priorities are stored in a memory (Forth pg. 8, ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0058; Harris pg. 5, ¶ 0053; pg. 9, ¶ 0089; pg. 12, ¶ 0122; pg. 13, ¶ 0130).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forth in view of Harris, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2017/0127204 A1 to Fisher et al. (“Fisher”).
As to claim 8, Forth in view of Harris discloses the method of claim 7.
Forth in view of Harris does not expressly disclose wherein individual audio inputs of the plurality of audio inputs that are received via a wired connection are prioritized over individual audio inputs of the plurality of audio inputs that are received via a wireless connection. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Fisher, which discloses a similar speaker system, and further discloses various audio sources for the system that are prioritized based on wired or wireless connections, with wired connections having higher priority (see figures 1 and 4; pg. 3, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0036). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design depending on the available audio input types, and further as wired communications are more reliable and therefore easier to control their transmission (Fisher figure 4; pg. 3, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0036)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forth in view of Harris, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2023/0195409 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”).
As to claim 12, Forth in view of Harris discloses the method of claim 11.
Forth in view of Harris does not expressly disclose further comprising: detecting disconnection of the particular audio input, wherein a particular audio source associated with the audio input stops transmitting the audio input; selecting a replacement audio input from the plurality of audio inputs based on the priorities; and transmitting the replacement audio input to the zone using the amplifier associated with the zone. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Choi, which discloses a similar speaker system, and further discloses a replacement audio input being adaptively selected based on priorities when an audio input device is disconnected (see pg. 2, ¶ 0038; pg. 3, ¶ 0043 - ¶ 0048). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to enable the system to accommodate malfunctions, errors, or loss of operations of audio input devices, and adaptively provide an audio input replacement without discontinuity (Choi pg. 3, ¶ 0043 - ¶ 0048; pg. 4, ¶ 0062 - ¶ 0064; pg. 10, ¶ 0156).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 further limits the method as recited in parent claim 11, as determining two audio inputs of the plurality of audio inputs that are assigned a same priority level, and assigning a revised priority to an audio input of the two audio inputs based on a first timestamp indicating when the audio input of the two audio inputs was mapped to the zone and a second timestamp indicating when the audio input of the two audio inputs began actively streaming. The closest prior art, cited by Applicant and Examiner, recite various methods and systems for prioritizing audio inputs in a zone-based audio system that incorporates various inputs, and further teach different audio inputs such as security alerts from emergency services and smoke detector alarms as having the same priority level (Harris figures 7A-7E), but do not disclose or suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed invention as recited in claim 13, including assigning a revised priority to an audio input of the two audio inputs based on a first timestamp indicating when the audio input of the two audio inputs was mapped to the zone and a second timestamp indicating when the audio input of the two audio inputs began actively streaming.
Claims 14-16 are dependent on claim 13, either directly or indirectly, and are therefore considered to include allowable subject matter at least for the same reasons as recited above.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No 11893306 B2 to Bates et al. is directed to a similar multi-zone playback system that receives audio from various sources for playback in various designated zones
US Patent No 11729568 B2 to Reimann is directed to a similar playback system that receives audio from various sources for playback in various designated zones
US Patent No 9883234 B2 to Coburn, IV et al. is directed to a similar playback system that receives audio from various sources for playback in various designated zones
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights