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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linsky et al. (US 20190007153) in view of Hogberg et al. (US 20220007201).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Linsky et al. discloses a method for and a transceiver comprising: a plurality of receivers; a transmitter (wireless communication device 102 uses Bluetooth and includes two concurrent radio transceivers thus two receivers and transmitters, Paragraph 35); and a controller (processor 106) operable to control: reception of a first reception signal on a first one of the receivers and a second reception signal on a second one of the receivers (two Bluetooth transceivers interpreted to be the same as the claims first and second receiver, used to receive audio signals through a wireless connection, Paragraph 38); and a timing of transmission of a transmission signal by the transmitter according to both reception at the first one of the receivers and reception at the second one of the receivers (processor schedules transmission to not overlap with first or second received packet, Paragraph 45), however Linsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose a simultaneous reception of a first reception signal on a first one of the receivers and a second reception signal on a second one of the receivers.
In an analogous art, Hogberg et al. discloses simultaneous reception of a first reception signal on a first one of the receivers and a second reception signal on a second one of the receivers (Fig. 1, Paragraph 32, 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simultaneously received signals from a first and second source to provide the user with additional content for an improved communication device (Hogberg et al., Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Linsky et al. further discloses the transmission signal is transmitted only at a time or times when no signals are received by the receivers (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 74-77).
Regarding Claim 3, Linsky et al. further discloses rein the transceiver is housed in a personal listening device (wireless device 102 includes headphones, Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 4, Linsky et al. further discloses headphones however Linsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose the personal listening device is an earbud.
In an analogous art, Hogberg et al. discloses the device includes an earbud (communication device is a earbud, Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an earbud as a headset for increased portability of the device with the smaller size.
Regarding Claim 5, Linsky et al. further discloses the transmission signal is responsive to at least one of the first reception signal or the second reception signal (retransmission based on NACK response, Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 6, Linsky et al. further discloses the transmission signal is responsive to the first reception signal and the second reception signal (both responses received may include NACK causing retransmission of corresponding transmitted packet, Paragraph 11 and 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Linsky et al. further discloses two Bluetooth transceivers used to receive audio signals through a wireless connection (Paragraph 38); and the transmission signal is for communication with the first source and the second source (retransmission of packets based on NACK for either received signal, Paragraph 12 and 61), however Linsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source.
In an analogous art, Hogberg et al. discloses the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source (a hearing instrument communicating with an accessory device thus a first source and receiving audio data transmitted from a second source as a mobile phone, Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first and second source to provide the user with increased media and device content without disconnecting and connecting manually each device.
Regarding Claim 8, Linsky et al. further discloses the first source is a BLUETOOTH source (Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Linsky et al. further discloses the first reception signal, the second reception signal, and the transmission signal are BLUETOOTH signals (Paragraph 30, 32).
Regarding Claim 11, Linsky et al. further discloses an antenna (Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 13, Linsky et al. further discloses the transmission signal is transmitted only at a time or times when no signals are received by the receivers (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 74-77).
Regarding Claim 14, Linsky et al. further discloses the transceiver is housed in a personal listening device (wireless device 102 includes headphones, Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 15, Linsky et al. further discloses two Bluetooth transceivers used to receive audio signals through a wireless connection (Paragraph 38); and the transmission signal is for communication with the first source and the second source (retransmission of packets based on NACK for either received signal, Paragraph 12 and 61), however Linsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source.
In an analogous art, Hogberg et al. discloses the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source (a hearing instrument communicating with an accessory device thus a first source and receiving audio data transmitted from a second source as a mobile phone, Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first and second source to provide the user with increased media and device content without disconnecting and connecting manually each device.
Regarding Claim 16, Linsky et al. further discloses the transmission signal is responsive to at least one of the first reception signal or the second reception signal (retransmission based on NACK response, Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 17, Linsky et al. further discloses the first reception signal, the second reception signal, and the transmission signal are BLUETOOTH signals (Paragraphs 30 and 32).
Regarding Claim 18, Linsky et al. further discloses two Bluetooth transceivers used to receive audio signals through a wireless connection (Paragraph 38); and the transmission signal is for communication with the first source and the second source (retransmission of packets based on NACK for either received signal, Paragraph 12 and 61), however Linsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source.
In an analogous art, Hogberg et al. discloses the first reception signal is transmitted by a first source; the second reception signal is transmitted by a second source (a hearing instrument communicating with an accessory device thus a first source and receiving audio data transmitted from a second source as a mobile phone, Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first and second source to provide the user with increased media and device content without disconnecting and connecting manually each device.
Regarding Claim 19, Linsky et al. further discloses the first source is a BLUETOOTH source (Paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linsky et al. (US 20190007153) in view of Hogberg et al. (US 20220007201) as applied to claims 7 and 12 above and further in view of Verger et al. (US 20200351747).
Regarding Claim 9, Linsky et al. further discloses the transceiver is housed in a personal listening device (Paragraph 30, headphones, headset), however Linsky et al. fails to disclose the first source is a mobile phone; and the second source is a watch.
In an analogous art, Verger et al. discloses earbuds in communication with a first source which is a mobile phone and a second source which is a watch (Paragraphs 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have communicate between a mobile phone, watch, and earbuds allows for sounds to be transmitted from worn and carried devices for immediate notification and to maintain privacy in audio playback.
Regarding Claim 20 Linsky et al. further discloses the transceiver is housed in a personal listening device (Paragraph 30, headphones, headset), however Linsky et al. fails to disclose the first source is a mobile phone; and the second source is a watch.
In an analogous art, Verger et al. discloses earbuds in communication with a first source which is a mobile phone and a second source which is a watch (Paragraphs 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have communicate between a mobile phone, watch, and earbuds allows for sounds to be transmitted from worn and carried devices for immediate notification and to maintain privacy in audio playback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-Friday 8:30am-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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights