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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are canceled
Claims 25-26 and 36-37 are rejected
Claims 27-35 and 38-44 are objected to
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25-26 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (US PUB 20170048615, hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 25, Son discloses a method applied to an electronic device (see at least the abstract and figure 1), wherein the method comprises: storing a listening volume value emitted by the electronic device as a first volume value (e.g. a first volume value saved in a memory 120), (see [0040] and figure 1A); adjusting, when an unadjusted system volume value of an audio system of the electronic device is less than a preset volume value, the unadjusted system volume value to an adjusted system volume value, wherein the adjusted system volume value is greater than or equal to the preset volume value; and adjusting, when the unadjusted system volume value is less than the preset volume value; a target application volume value (e.g. a maximum volume value) of a target application based on the adjusted system volume value so that the listening volume value remains unchanged (e.g. when an unadjusted volume level is detected, a processor 160 outputs volume adjustment signal to audio processing unit 150 for decreasing or increasing the unadjusted volume level to correspond to the target volume level that have been prestored in the memory 120 so that the listening volume value remains at a constant level); (see Son, [0036], [0040], [0066]-[0074], and [0176], also figures 1A-1B, 2 and 12).
Son further teaches receiving an input from an ultrasonic input device 1258 (figure 12), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preset volume value is a minimum system volume value for implementing ultrasonic recognition. However, Examiner officially noticed that it would have been obvious to try to set the volume at the minimum level since such volume level usually results in optimal ultrasonic recognition. More so, discovering minimum volume level as the level for optimal result does not constitute an inventive step, since it has been held that: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 26, Son discloses the method according to claim 25, further comprising emitting an ultrasonic wave using the audio system when an ultrasonic wave control switch of the electronic device is turned on (e.g. via an ultrasonic input device 1258), (see Son [0176]-[0177], also figure 12).
Regarding claim 36, Son discloses an electronic device (see at least the abstract and figure 1) comprising: an audio system capable of emitting an ultrasonic wave (e.g. based on an ultrasonic input device 1258); a memory (e.g. a memory 120) configured to store executable instructions (e.g. software program); and one or more processors (e.g. processor 160) coupled to the memory (e.g. figure 1A) and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to: store a listening volume value emitted by the electronic device as a first volume value (e.g. a first volume value saved in a memory 120), (see [0031] and [0040], also figure 1A); adjust, when an unadjusted system volume value of the audio system is less than a preset volume value, the unadjusted system volume value to an adjusted system volume value, wherein the adjusted system volume value is greater than or equal to the preset volume value; and adjust, when the unadjusted system volume value is less than the preset volume value, a target application volume value of a target application based on the adjusted system volume value so that the listening volume value remains unchanged (e.g. when an unadjusted volume level is detected, a processor 160 outputs volume adjustment signal to audio processing unit 150 for decreasing or increasing the unadjusted volume level to correspond to the target volume level that have been prestored in the memory 120 so that the listening volume value remains at a constant level), (see figure 2); (see Son, [0036], [0040], [0066]-[0074], [0176], also figures 1A-1B, 2 and 12).
Son further teaches wherein the target application uses the audio system with the ultrasonic wave (e.g. via the ultrasonic input device 1258, see figure 12), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preset volume value is a minimum system volume value for implementing ultrasonic recognition. However, Examiner officially noticed that it would have been obvious to try to set the volume at the minimum level since such volume level usually results in optimal ultrasonic recognition. More so, discovering minimum volume level as the level for optimal result does not constitute an inventive step, since it has been held that: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 37, Son discloses the electronic device according to claim 36, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to emit the ultrasonic wave using the audio system when an ultrasonic wave control switch of the electronic device is turned on (e.g. via an ultrasonic input device 1258), (see Son [0176]-[0177], also figure 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-35 and 38-44 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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 at 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695.
Prosecution Insights