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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 6/18/26 which has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-11 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1 and 6 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/19/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Sound Bar Device Working Together with External Speaker.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “storage unit for storing” in claims 1-5 and 7-11, “correction unit for correcting” in claims 1-5 and 7-11, “profile information generation unit to generate the acoustic profile information” in claims 1-5 and 7-11, “main control unit for setting an output destination” in claims 1-5 and 7-11, and “a control unit for acquiring” in claims 7-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Para 0028 states that the storage means is memory and para 0028 states that the correcting, generating, and control units are integrated logic IC such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a DSP or a CPU. However, when a generic computing component is the structure, the corresponding algorithm must also be found, but the algorithm in the Specification is unclear (see 112(b) rejection below).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. When a claim is rejected over 112(b) because the Specification does not provide sufficient corresponding structure for limitations that invoke 112(f), the limitations will also lack written description under 112(a), see MPEP 2181(II)(B).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 3, 8, and 10, claim 3 recites the limitation, “an acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal and the acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal output from the external speaker There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if the acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal is the same as the one introduced earlier in the claim. Examiner interprets as the acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal and an acoustic characteristic of the second test audio signal output from the external speaker. Claims 8 and 10 depend from claim 3, therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Referring to claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation, “the test audio signal input to the external speaker”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets as a test audio signal input to the external speaker instead of “a test audio signal input to the sound bar device”.
Referring to claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation, “the audio signal to be reproduced by temporarily stopping the second test audio signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear how stopping an airborne audio signal (the second test audio signal) would set a destination of another signal. Further, later in the claim, the method does something “when the sound bar device is set to the dual output mode”, however, the preamble of the claim states that the device is “set to a test mode”, so no scenario exists according to the claim where the device would ever actually be in the dual output mode. Examiner interprets as
stopping audio output from the speakers;
analyzing an acoustic characteristic of an audio signal input to the sound bar device and collecting a second audio signal resulting from outputting the audio signal from the external speaker by a microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof, or transmitting a test audio signal having an acoustic characteristic which is registered, to the external speaker to output the test audio signal from the external speaker and collecting a second test audio signal resulting from outputting the test audio signal from the external speaker by the microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof,
generating dual output mode acoustic profile information of the second test audio signal for outputting, with respect to a third audio signal to be reproduced, a frequency band that is unable to be covered by an acoustic characteristic of the external speaker, based on the acoustic characteristic of the audio signal, the test audio signal input to the external speaker own sound bar device, or the second test audio signal collected by the microphone,
entering the dual output mode;
correcting the third audio signal to be output from the speakers of the plurality of channels in accordance with the dual output mode acoustic profile information.
Referring to claims 1-5 and 7-11, claim limitation “correction unit for correcting”, “profile information generation unit to generate the acoustic profile information”, “main control unit for setting” in claims 1-5 and 7-11 and “control unit for acquiring” in claims 7-8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification merely says the correction, profile information generation, and main control units are a general-purpose computer, and therefore, the corresponding algorithm must be identified (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). However, the algorithm is not clearly set forth in the disclosure. Discussion of the means/units is spread out through the Specification without any algorithm being clearly defined. Further, exemplary language, such as “may”, “such as”, “for example”, etc. makes the algorithm even more unclear, as it is impossible to discern what is specifically required by the algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US Publication No. 20160021229 in view of Walsh et al. US Publication No. 20150016642 and Garcia et al. US Publication No. 20220295204.
Referring to claim 1, Lewis et al. teaches a sound device, which is configured to accommodate speakers in the same housing (Fig. 3: loudspeaker 303 in auxiliary loudspeaker device 300; para 0027: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 further includes a loudspeaker 303, which is contained within an enclosure”), and has a dual output mode of using the sound device together with an external speaker (para 0029: “portions of the multimedia audio content that are played by the mobile device loudspeaker(s) versus the portions of the multimedia audio content that are played by the auxiliary loudspeaker device”; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100), the sound device comprising:
dual output mode acoustic profile information for outputting, with respect to an audio signal to be reproduced, a frequency band that is unable to be covered by an acoustic characteristic of the external speaker (para 0014: “The loudspeaker(s) 111 are inefficient or incapable of producing relatively low frequency sounds (e.g., audio having frequency less than 1 kHz) at suitable volume levels for the situation where the mobile device is at a distance from the user's ears (e.g., around 50 cm).”; para 0029: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 filters out or receives, pre-filtered, a relatively lower-frequency portion of the multimedia audio content, i.e., from approximately 20 Hz to 1 kHz, and plays only that portion of the multimedia audio content at the loudspeaker of the auxiliary loudspeaker device.”);
a correction unit for correcting, when the sound device is set to the dual output mode, an audio signal to be output from the speakers in accordance with the dual output mode acoustic profile information (Fig. 3: audio processing unit 302; para 0026: “an audio processing unit 302, which may include, for example, in the implementation where the auxiliary loudspeaker receives a multimedia audio signal corresponding to an entire frequency spectrum of the multimedia audio content, a preamplifier that amplifies the multimedia audio signal received via the telecoil 301, a shaping filter (e.g., a signal processing circuit including a low-pass or a band-pass filter) for obtaining a low frequency portion of the multimedia audio content of the received multimedia audio signal, and a power amplifier for amplifying the obtained low frequency portion of the multimedia audio content.”); and
a main control unit for setting an output destination of the audio signal to be reproduced, and instructing an acoustic profile information generation unit to generate the acoustic profile information (Fig. 3: audio processing unit 302; para 0029: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 filters out or receives, pre-filtered, a relatively lower-frequency portion of the multimedia audio content, i.e., from approximately 20 Hz to 1 kHz, and plays only that portion of the multimedia audio content at the loudspeaker of the auxiliary loudspeaker device.”).
However, Lewis et al. does not teach a sound bar, memory per se, or being in a test mode per se, but Walsh et al. teaches a sound bar device (Fig. 1: soundbar 110), which is configured to accommodate speakers of a plurality of channels in a same housing (Fig. 1: speaker array 112 accommodated within same housing of soundbar 110; para 0032: “soundbar models are often powered systems comprising speaker arrays integrating left and right channel speakers with optional center speaker and/or subwoofer as well”) and storage unit for storing (Fig. memory 220), the sound bar device is set to a test audio mode (para 0032: “The soundbar 110 has integrated in its enclosure…a microphone array 114, a calibration engine 116”; abstract: “playing a test signal at each loudspeaker and measuring the test signal received at the microphone array.”). Both Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. teach auxiliary speaker setups, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in a sound bar, as taught in Walsh et al., for the speaker of Lewis et al. because both speakers allow for sound to be output through an external device. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include memory in the auxiliary speaker, as taught in Walsh et al., in the device of Lewis et al. because it allows the auxiliary device to carry out instructions of augmenting multimedia playback on the auxiliary device. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enter a test mode at the sound bar, as taught in Walsh et al., in the device of Lewis et al. because it allows for the frequency response of Fig. 7 of Lewis et al. to be determined and spatial calibration to be performed.
However, Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. do not teach what happens to other audio when testing occurs, but Garcia et al. teaches when the device is set to a test audio mode, stopping the audio signal to be output from the speakers (para 0004: “playing a test tone may pause playback of streaming media content”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of play status of audio during a test, therefore it would have been obvious to try pausing/stopping audio, as taught in Garcia et al., as opposed to continue playing audio in the device of Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. because the test mode will be more accurately and efficiently implemented when there is not background audio to confuse the test.
Referring to claim 2, Lewis et al. teaches acoustic profile generation unit for generating the dual output mode acoustic profile information after a test has been performed (Fig. 3: audio processing unit 302; para 0026) analyzing an acoustic characteristic of an audio signal which has been input and collecting an audio signal output from the external speaker by a microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof (para 0014: “the loudspeaker(s) 111 are inefficient or incapable of producing relatively low frequency sounds (e.g., audio having frequency less than 1 kHz) at suitable volume levels for the situation where the mobile device is at a distance from the user's ears (e.g., around 50 cm). For example, FIG. 7 is an exemplary graph illustrating typical sound pressure levels generated by a mobile device at a distance of approximately 50 cm away from the mobile device. As can be seen in FIG. 7, the decibel level falls off at frequencies below approximately 1 kHz.”), to thereby generate the dual output mode acoustic profile information based on the acoustic characteristic of the audio signal which has been input and the acoustic characteristic of the audio signal output from the external speaker (para 0026) and Walsh et al. teaches a microphone (Fig. 1: microphone array 114); the own sound bar device is set to a test mode, by analyzing an acoustic characteristic of an audio signal which has been input and collecting the audio signal output from the external speaker by the microphone (para 0032: “The soundbar 110 has integrated in its enclosure…a microphone array 114, a calibration engine 116”; abstract: “playing a test signal at each loudspeaker and measuring the test signal received at the microphone array.”). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, Lewis et al. teaches the acoustic profile generation unit for generating the dual output mode acoustic profile information after a test has been performed (Fig. 3: audio processing unit 302; para 0026) a test audio signal having an acoustic characteristic which is registered, to the external speaker to output a second test audio signal from the external speaker and collecting the second test audio signal output from the external speaker by the microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof (para 0014: “the loudspeaker(s) 111 are inefficient or incapable of producing relatively low frequency sounds (e.g., audio having frequency less than 1 kHz) at suitable volume levels for the situation where the mobile device is at a distance from the user's ears (e.g., around 50 cm). For example, FIG. 7 is an exemplary graph illustrating typical sound pressure levels generated by a mobile device at a distance of approximately 50 cm away from the mobile device. As can be seen in FIG. 7, the decibel level falls off at frequencies below approximately 1 kHz.”), to thereby generate the dual output mode acoustic profile information based on an acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal and the acoustic characteristic of the test audio signal output from the external speaker (para 0026) and Walsh et al. teaches a microphone (Fig. 1: microphone array 114); the own sound bar device is set to a test mode, by transmitting a test audio signal having an acoustic characteristic, to the external speaker to output the test audio signal from the external speaker and collecting the test audio signal output from the external speaker by the microphone (para 0032: “The soundbar 110 has integrated in its enclosure…a microphone array 114, a calibration engine 116”; abstract: “playing a test signal at each loudspeaker and measuring the test signal received at the microphone array.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a microphone in a sound bar, as taught in Walsh et al., in the device of Lewis et al. because it allows for the frequency response of Fig. 7 of Lewis et al. to be determined.
Referring to claim 4, Lewis et al. teaches the control unit acquires, when the sound device is set to the dual output mode, a volume level of the external speaker and causing a volume level of the speakers of the plurality of channels to match the acquired volume level (para 0028) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 5, Lewis et al. teaches an audio system, comprising: the sound device of claim 1 (Fig. 3: auxiliary loudspeaker device 300); and an external speaker to be used together with the sound bar device (Fig. 3: mobile device 100; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device of claim 1 (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 6, Lewis et al. teaches a method of setting a sound device, the sound device being configured to accommodate speakers in the same housing (Fig. 3: loudspeaker 303 in auxiliary loudspeaker device 300; para 0027: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 further includes a loudspeaker 303, which is contained within an enclosure”), and having a dual output mode of using the sound bar device together with an external speaker (para 0029: “portions of the multimedia audio content that are played by the mobile device loudspeaker(s) versus the portions of the multimedia audio content that are played by the auxiliary loudspeaker device”; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100),
the method comprising:
analyzing an acoustic characteristic of an audio signal input to the sound bar device and collecting a second audio signal resulting from outputting the audio signal from the external speaker by a microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof, or transmitting a test audio signal having an acoustic characteristic which is registered, to the external speaker to output the test audio signal from the external speaker and collecting a second test audio signal resulting from outputting the test audio signal from the external speaker by the microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof (para 0014: “FIG. 7 is an exemplary graph illustrating typical sound pressure levels generated by a mobile device at a distance of approximately 50 cm away from the mobile device. As can be seen in FIG. 7, the decibel level falls off at frequencies below approximately 1 kHz.” – Examiner notes that in order to plot frequency response of the mobile device speakers, a sound signal would need to have been played by the speaker and then recorded by a microphone);
setting an output destination of the audio signal to be reproduced, and instructing an acoustic profile information generation unit to generate the acoustic profile information of the second test audio signal (Fig. 3: audio processing unit 302; para 0029: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 filters out or receives, pre-filtered, a relatively lower-frequency portion of the multimedia audio content, i.e., from approximately 20 Hz to 1 kHz, and plays only that portion of the multimedia audio content at the loudspeaker of the auxiliary loudspeaker device.”)
generating dual output mode acoustic profile information for outputting, with respect to a third audio signal to be reproduced, a frequency band that is unable to be covered by an acoustic characteristic of the external speaker, based on the acoustic characteristic of the audio signal, the test audio signal input to the external speaker, or the second test audio signal collected by the microphone (para 0014: “the loudspeaker(s) 111 are inefficient or incapable of producing relatively low frequency sounds (e.g., audio having frequency less than 1 kHz) at suitable volume levels for the situation where the mobile device is at a distance from the user's ears (e.g., around 50 cm).”; para 0029: “The auxiliary loudspeaker device 300 filters out or receives, pre-filtered, a relatively lower-frequency portion of the multimedia audio content, i.e., from approximately 20 Hz to 1 kHz, and plays only that portion of the multimedia audio content at the loudspeaker of the auxiliary loudspeaker device.”),
the method further comprising, when the sound bar device is set to the dual output mode, correcting the third audio signal to be output from the speakers of the plurality of channels in accordance with the dual output mode acoustic profile information (para 0026: “an audio processing unit 302, which may include, for example, in the implementation where the auxiliary loudspeaker receives a multimedia audio signal corresponding to an entire frequency spectrum of the multimedia audio content, a preamplifier that amplifies the multimedia audio signal received via the telecoil 301, a shaping filter (e.g., a signal processing circuit including a low-pass or a band-pass filter) for obtaining a low frequency portion of the multimedia audio content of the received multimedia audio signal, and a power amplifier for amplifying the obtained low frequency portion of the multimedia audio content.”).
However, Lewis et al. does not teach a sound bar or the actual test mode per se, but Walsh et al. teaches a sound bar device (Fig. 1: soundbar 110), the sound bar device being configured to accommodate speakers of a plurality of channels in a same housing (Fig. 1: speaker array 112 accommodated within same housing of soundbar 110; para 0032: “soundbar models are often powered systems comprising speaker arrays integrating left and right channel speakers with optional center speaker and/or subwoofer as well”), a sound bar device set to a test mode, analyzing an acoustic characteristic of an audio signal input to the sound bar device and collecting a second audio signal resulting from outputting the audio signal from the external speaker by a microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic thereof (para 0032: “The soundbar 110 has integrated in its enclosure…a microphone array 114, a calibration engine 116”; abstract: “playing a test signal at each loudspeaker and measuring the test signal received at the microphone array.”).. Both Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. teach auxiliary speaker setups, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in a sound bar, as taught in Walsh et al., for the speaker of Lewis et al. because both speakers allow for sound to be output through an external device. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enter a test mode at the sound bar, as taught in Walsh et al., in the method of Lewis et al. because it allows for the frequency response of Fig. 7 of Lewis et al. to be determined and spatial calibration to be performed.
However, Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. do not teach what happens to other audio when testing occurs, but Garcia et al. teaches temporarily stopping the audio signal (para 0004: “playing a test tone may pause playback of streaming media content”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of play status of audio during a test, therefore it would have been obvious to try pausing/stopping audio, as taught in Garcia et al., as opposed to continue playing audio in the method of Lewis et al. and Walsh et al. because the test mode will be more accurately and efficiently implemented when there is not background audio to confuse the test.
Referring to claim 7, Lewis et al. teaches a control unit for acquiring, when the sound device is set to the dual output mode, a volume level of the external speaker and causing a volume level of the speakers of the plurality of channels to match the acquired volume level (para 0028) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 8, Lewis et al. teaches a control unit for acquiring, when the sound device is set to the dual output mode, a volume level of the external speaker and causing a volume level of the speakers of the plurality of channels to match the acquired volume level (para 0028) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 9, Lewis et al. teaches an audio system, comprising: the sound device of claim 2 (Fig. 3: auxiliary loudspeaker device 300); and an external speaker to be used together with the sound bar device (Fig. 3: mobile device 100; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device of claim 2 (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 10, Lewis et al. teaches an audio system, comprising: the sound device of claim 3 (Fig. 3: auxiliary loudspeaker device 300); and an external speaker to be used together with the sound bar device (Fig. 3: mobile device 100; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device of claim 3 (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 11, Lewis et al. teaches an audio system, comprising: the sound device of claim 3 (Fig. 3: auxiliary loudspeaker device 300); and an external speaker to be used together with the sound bar device (Fig. 3: mobile device 100; Fig. 1: loudspeaker(s) 111 of mobile device 100) and Walsh et al. teaches the sound bar device of claim 4 (Fig. 1: soundbar 110). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in para 1 of Objection – Specification on page 8 of the remarks:
“In the Office Action, the title of the invention was rejected for allegedly not being descriptive. [Office Action, pg. 2]. For clarity, the Applicant has amended the title to be SOUNDBAR DEVICE, AUDIO SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR SETTING A SOUNDBAR DEVICE. The Applicant submits that the title, as amended, is sufficiently descriptive, as the pending claims relate to a sound bar device, an audio system, and a method of setting a sound bar device. Reconsideration of the title is therefore respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current title is merely suggestive of the field of invention. Applicant has rearranged words in the title and has not changed it to bring in the inventive concept or other language to sufficiently describe the invention. Again, Examiner suggests the following title Sound Bar Device Working Together with External Speaker.
Applicant states in paras 1 and 7 of Claim Rejection -35USC112(a) on pages 8-9 of the remarks:
“In the Office Action, claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 for allegedly failing to comply with the written requirement. Specifically, the Office Action stated that "the claims contained subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention." [Office Action, pg. 5]. Further, the Office Action stated the claims were "indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention." [Office Action, pg. 5].
Claims 1-11 were rejected for reciting "correcting means for correcting," "profile generation means for generating the dual mode output mode acoustic profile information", and "control means for acquiring" without providing sufficient structure. For clarity, the Applicant has amended the claims to recite "a correcting unit," "a profile generating unit," and "a control unit."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Changing “means” to “unit” still invokes a 112(f) interpretation, as a “unit” does not have any specific structure. Therefore, because the structure from the disclosure is merely a generic computer, the algorithm also needs to be present. But as explained above, no algorithm is found, therefore, the 112(b) and 112(a) rejections remain.
Applicant states in para 1 of page 11 of the remarks:
“Claim 6, as amended, clarifies that all the steps presented in claim 6 are required, as the entirety of the method is applicable only when a speaker is set to a test mode. Claim 6, as amended, is allowable, as Walsh does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 6. For example, Walsh does not disclose "transmitting a test audio signal having an acoustic characteristic which is registered, to the external speaker to output the test audio signal from the external speaker and collecting a second test audio signal output resulting from outputting the test audio signal from the external speaker by the microphone to analyze an acoustic characteristic." Therefore, claim 6 is distinct from Walsh.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Please refer to the rejection above to see how the prior art reads on the claim.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights