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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to be missing an end period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 8-9 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.
Claim 5 recites “a second such calibration step” in line 2 of the claim. The claim however does not recite a first or initial calibration step, therefore it is not clear how many calibration steps are required by the claim, nor what the term “such” indicates regarding the calibration step recited by claim 5. For the purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 4, which recites and further describes a calibration step. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites “a computing system,” “a processor,” “a loudspeaker system,” “a criteria database,” “a helper database,” “a library of installation change suggestions,” and “a plurality of pre-determined non-compliances.” It is unclear if these limitations are meant to refer to the same elements recited in parent claim 1, or if they are referring to other or additional elements.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and is therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reason as parent claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program per se, therefore does not fall within one of the four patent eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10 are allowed.
11. Claims 5 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing a report for optimizing an installation of a loudspeaker system comprising at least one loudspeaker in a monitoring space. The method comprises providing audio data representative of the performance of the loudspeaker system and performing an analysis with a processor of a computing system external to the loudspeaker system or with processing resources included in the at least one loudspeaker. The analysis comprises extracting a value for at least one audio parameter from the provided audio data and comparing the extracted value to a criteria database, the criteria database comprising a tolerance for the at least one audio parameter. If the value being analyzed is within the associated tolerance, an indication of compliance for the corresponding audio parameter is stored as a result, and if the value being analyzed is not within the associated tolerance, a helper database is queried, the helper database comprising a library of installation change suggestions for a plurality of pre-determined non-compliances with tolerances for the at least one audio parameter for an installation suggestion for said value. In addition, an indication of non-compliance for the corresponding audio parameter and the associated installation suggestion is stored as a result. The stored result is then compiled, and the method further comprises outputting the compiled result.
The closest prior art, cited by Applicant and Examiner, discloses similar methods for collecting data and correcting or adjusting parameters according to the room or space the loudspeaker system is installed. The prior art further discloses detecting speaker positioning errors via audio data or a test tone and further suggests remedies to setup errors. The prior art however does not disclose or suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed method as defined by Applicant, including producing a report for optimizing an installation of the loudspeaker system by comparing the value of at least one audio parameter with a criteria database, which comprises a tolerance for the at least one audio parameter. If the value is within the associated tolerance, an indication of compliance for the corresponding audio parameter is stored as a result, and if the value being analyzed is not within the associated tolerance, a helper database is queried, the helper database comprising a library of installation change suggestions for a plurality of pre-determined non-compliances with tolerances for the at least one audio parameter for an installation suggestion for said value. An indication of non-compliance for the corresponding audio parameter and the associated installation suggestion is then stored as a result in this case, and the stored result is then compiled and outputted. Claim 1 is therefore considered to include allowable subject matter and claims 2-10 are further considered to include allowable subject matter at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
13. 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