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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as follows: some of the figures are blurry and need to be resubmitted (see, for example, fig. 6A and fig. 6B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in line 2; Claim 1, line 10, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”? claim 1, line 12, “end” should be replaced by “an end”.
Claim 2, line 4, “the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 2. Claim 2, line 4, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 3, line 6, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 4, line 6, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 5, line 7, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 7, line 3, the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 2. Claim 7, line 3, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 8, line 3 , “the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 2. Claim 8, line 4, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 9, line 6, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 10, line 3, “the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 2. Claim 10, line 3, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
As per claim 11, see claim 10.
Claim 12, line 7, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 13, line 5, “the communication” should be replaced by “the communication device” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 2. Claim 13, line 5, shouldn’t “either” be inserted before “operate”?
Claim 14, line 8, “end” should be replaced by “the end”.
Claim 15, line 2, “is” should be deleted.
Claim 16, line 3, “is” should be deleted; claim 16, line 9, “end” should be replaced by “an end”; claim 16, line 9, shouldn’t “from” be replaced by “to”?
As per claim 19, see claim 1.
Claim 20, line 10, “end” should be replaced by “the end” for consistency with antecedent in claim 19, line 16.
Any claim whose base claim is objected is likewise objected.
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 14-15 and 19 and 20 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 14, lines 4-5, “a first beacon signal” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 1, line 9.
Claim 15, lines 3-4, “an audio signal” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 1, lines 2-3.
Claim 19, line 7, “a wireless audio transmitting device” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 19, line 3.
Claim 20, line 5, “an audio signal” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 19, lines 6-7. Claim 20, line 5, “an ultra-wideband communication” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 19, line 8. Claim 20, lines 10-11, “a wireless audio receiving device” is vague and indefinite, as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 19, line 2. Claim 20, lines 11-12, “a first beacon signal” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 19, line 13.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20220303680 A1 in view of Irie et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20180255571 A1.
As per claim 16, Ahmed et al discloses a wireless audio transmitting device (fig. 4) comprising a communication device (306) configured to transmit an audio signal through an ultra-wideband communication (note fig. 4, and further the abstract that teaches that the signal is an audio signal)); a power source inherently provided to supply power to the communication device (in order to operate, “the communication device” requires power. Hence, a power source is inherently present to provide the power). However, for the sake of argument, note US20130120661, para. [0015] that teaches an audio signal apparatus provided with a power source to supply power to the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify Ahmed et al by providing a power source to power the communication device in order to facilitate the operation of the device. However, it fails to teach the additional limitation of “the communication device is configured to transmit end frame information from a wireless audio receiving device after transmitting a first beacon signal”. Irie et al teaches a communication apparatus fig. 2, configured to transmit an end of frame information “CF-END” (note at least fig. 6B and para. [0086]) from a wireless audio receiving device (fig. 2) following transmission of a beacon signal “Beacon Element” (note at least fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Ahmed et al for the added benefit of allowing the user/device to be aware of the end of communication occurs for efficient use of system resources.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20260046557 A1 in view of Irie et al US Patent Application Publication No. US201802555771A1.
The applied reference (US20260046557 A1) has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As per claim 16, Jeong et al discloses a wireless audio transmitting device (fig. 1A and fig. 2) comprising a communication device (135) configured to transmit an audio signal through an ultra-wideband communication (note para. [0010]]); a power source (190) to power the communication device in order to facilitate the operation of the device. However, it fails to teach the additional limitation of “the communication device is configured to transmit end frame information from a wireless audio receiving device after transmitting a first beacon signal”. Irie et al teaches a communication apparatus fig. 2, configured to transmit an end of frame information “CF-END” (note at least fig. 6B and para. [0086]) from a wireless audio receiving device (fig. 2) following transmission of a beacon signal “Beacon Element” (note at least fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Jeong et al for the added benefit of allowing the user/device to be aware of the end of communication occurs for efficient use of system resources.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: an audio device is claimed. The closest prior art (Ahmed et al) US20220303680 A1 discloses a similar device including a wireless audio transmitting device (fig. 4) comprising a communication device (306) configured to transmit an audio signal through an ultra-wideband communication (note fig. 4, and further the abstract that teaches that the signal is an audio signal)); a power source inherently provided to supply power to the communication device (in order to operate, “the communication device” requires power). However, it fails to teach “the communication is configured to: operate based on a power of a first level in response to receiving a first beacon signal, and operate based on a power of a second level lower than the first level or turn off, in response to receiving end frame information from the wireless audio transmitting device, after receiving the first beacon signal”, recited in claims 1 and 19.
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection sets forth above.
Claims 14-15 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 17-18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633