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
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-14, 16-20 and 77-97 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 10/08/24.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10-14, 16-20 and 77-97 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.
Regarding claims 1, 77, and 93, the applicant’s specification fails to teach the following:
“…wherein the one or more first pairing validation operations comprises determining a wireless audio communication profile …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93).
Specifically, the applicant’s specification teaches that a pairing (e.g. a Bluetooth pairing) operation enables a subsequent determination of a communication profile (e.g. Specification, par. 23, 76). However, the applicant’s original disclosure fails to teach that the pairing operation comprises the determination of a communication profile. The examiner notes that device pairing, e.g. the Bluetooth pairing of a control device (e.g. a mobile phone) to a base station, is a separate and distinct operation from that of determining a communication profile, such as identifying configuration parameters for an audio capture device (e.g. microphone). The applicant fails to teach that the pairing operation comprises the determination operation.
“…receiving encrypted wireless audio control signals … from audio capture devices …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93).
Specifically, the applicant’s original disclosure fails to teach that encrypted control signals are received from audio capture devices (e.g. microphones). Note that an “audio capture device”, e.g. microphone, is distinct from a “wireless control device”, such as a mobile phone or laptop – disclosed to transmit command and control information (e.g. Specification, par. 49, 50; fig. 2:206). Rather the applicant’s disclosure teaches that the audio capture devices (e.g. microphones) capture acoustic sounds and transmit the sounds as audio signals to an audio access point (e.g. Specification, par. 48). The applicant has not disclosed how a microphone or “audio capture device” (e.g. Specification, fig. 8:810) has been configured to transmit control signals.
“… sending … encrypted wireless audio signals to … audio capture devices …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93)
Specifically, the applicant’s original disclosure fails to teach that encrypted audio signals are sent to audio capture devices (e.g. microphones). Note that an “audio capture device”, e.g. microphone, is distinct from an “audio receipt device”, such as a speaker – disclosed as receiving audio signals (e.g. Specification, par. 70; fig. 2:228). Rather the applicant’s disclosure teaches that the audio capture devices (e.g. microphones) capture acoustic sounds and transmit the sounds as audio signals to an audio access point (e.g. Specification, par. 48). The applicant has not disclosed how a microphone or “audio capture device” (e.g. Specification, fig. 8:810) has been configured to also receive audio signals.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10-14, 16-20 and 77-97 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.
Regarding claims 1, 77, and 93, the recitation “…wherein the one or more first pairing validation operations comprises determining a wireless audio communication profile …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93) renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, it is unclear as to how the pairing (e.g. a Bluetooth pairing) operation of a control device (e.g. mobile phone) comprises the determination of a communication profile for enabling the transmission of audio signals from an “audio capture device” or microphone. The examiner notes that device pairing, e.g. the Bluetooth pairing of the control device or mobile phone (fig. 2:206), is a separate and distinct operation from that of determining a communication profile enabling audio transfer from the audio capture device or microphone (fig. 2:208b). The applicant fails to teach how the pairing operation comprises the determination operation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand the meaning of the recitation.
Regarding claims 1, 77, and 93, the recitation “…receiving encrypted wireless audio control signals … from audio capture devices …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93) renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, it is unclear as to how encrypted control signals are received from audio capture devices (e.g. microphones). The examiner notes that the claimed “audio capture devices” are disclosed by the applicant to be transducers or microphones. A transducer or microphone is designed detect or “capture” acoustic signals and transmit the signals as “audio” signals. However, microphones are not understood in the art to transmit encrypted “control” signals. The applicant has not disclosed how a microphone or “audio capture device” (e.g. Specification, fig. 8:810) has been configured to transmit control signals and one of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand the meaning of such recitation.
Regarding claims 1, 77, and 93, the recitation “… sending … encrypted wireless audio signals to … audio capture devices …” (e.g. claim 1, and similarly recited within claims 77 and 93) renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, it is unclear as to how encrypted audio signals are sent to audio capture devices (e.g. microphones). The examiner notes that the claimed “audio capture devices” are disclosed by the applicant to be transducers or microphones. A transducer or microphone is designed to transmit “audio” signals. However, microphones are not understood in the art to receive audio signals. The applicant has not disclosed how a microphone or “audio capture device” (e.g. Specification, fig. 8:810) has been configured to receive audio signals and one of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand the meaning of such recitation.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation “…wherein the audio channel allocation algorithm comprises a waiting queue…” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear as to how an algorithm is said to comprise a queue because an algorithm is a process, whereas a queue is a structure.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 93 – 97 are 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 they are broadly directed towards software (i.e. “program product”) that is embodied (i.e. “stored”) upon signals per se. (i.e. “computer readable medium”).
Because software within the form of transitory signals does not fall within any statutory category of invention, these claims are rejected as nonstatutory.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-14, 16-20 and 77-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodley et al. (Bodley), US 2013/0316752 A1 in view of Bodley et al. (Bodley-2), US 2007/0149246 A1.
Regarding claim 1, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Bodley discloses:
An audio access point transceiver (e.g. Bodley, fig. 1:102 – audio conferencing base station) configured to send and receive encrypted wireless audio signals to and from audio capture devices and distribute audio signal data to an audio processing network (e.g. Bodley, Abstract; par. 27, 29), the audio access point transceiver comprising:
a wireless control communication interface (e.g. Bodley, par. 26; fig. 2) configured to support one or more first pairing validation operations compliant with a first wireless communication protocol (e.g. Bodley, par. 29, 64 – the base station is configured to perform a Bluetooth protocol connection to a mobile phone 106, i.e. a “first pairing validation operation”), wherein the one or more first pairing validation operations comprises determining a wireless audio communication profile (e.g. Bodley, par. 33, 35, 50, 51 - 62 – the mobile phone 106 pairing enables the determination of a audio conference configuration, i.e. “wireless audio communication profile”), wherein the wireless audio communication profile enables sending and receiving encrypted wireless audio control signals to and from audio capture devices (e.g. Bodley, par. 26, 35; fig. 1:110 – the mobile phone 106 connection, used to send and receive audio conference configuration commands with the base station, is an encrypted channel, such a Bluetooth, thereby enabling the controlling of wireless microphones 110, i.e. “audio capture devices”);
a wireless audio communication interface (e.g. Bodley, par. 26; fig. 2) configured to support a second pairing validation operation … (e.g. Bodley, par. 26, 40, 51; e.g. DECT, VoIP, etc.),
While Bodley teaches secondary wireless communication protocols, e.g. DECT, and the pairing of microphones over a RF link (e.g. Bodley, par .29, 46), Bodley does not appear to explicitly teach that the microphones, i.e. “audio capture devices”, are paired according to DECT, i.e. “…compliant with a second wireless communication protocol…”.
However, Bodely-2 does teach pairing microphones to the base station according to DECT (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 37, 70, 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Thus the combination enables:
…compliant with a second wireless communication protocol (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 37, 70, 71 – pairing with the base station according to DECT communication protocol).
wherein the second pairing validation operation comprises a channel assignment operation (e.g. Bodley, 6, 40, 42 - the linking or “pairing” of the microphone to the base station comprises the allocation of one or more channels), wherein the channel assignment operation enables sending and receiving encrypted wireless audio signals to and from audio capture devices (e.g. Bodley, par. 40);
and a wired audio communication interface configured to support one or more wired audio communication protocols (e.g. Bodley, fig. 2; par. 7, 29, 32 – e.g. USB, Ethernet, optical audio), wherein the wired audio communication interface enables distribution of the audio signal data via one or more wired audio communication protocols to the audio processing network (e.g. Bodley, par. 7, 29).
Regarding claim 2, the combination enables:
a wired control communication interface configured to support one or more wired control communication protocols, wherein the one or more wired control communication protocols enable control of the distribution of the audio signal data to the audio processing network (e.g. Bodley, fig. 2; par. 7, 29, 32 – e.g. USB, Ethernet, optical audio, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination enables:
wherein the wireless audio control signals comprise channel allocation settings (e.g. Bodley, par. 42, 48) (See also Bodley-2, par. 62, 74-76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 5, the combination enables:
wherein the channel allocation settings comprise priority allocation settings indicating a priority of one or more audio capture devices (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 62, 74-76 – registered microphones are allocated channels first and unregistered devices are allocated a next available channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 6, the combination enables:
wherein the channel allocation settings comprise fixed channel settings indicating a reserved audio channel frequency assignment for one or more audio capture devices (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 47-50 – channel frequencies of registered microphones may be reserved by controlling the RF range of the microphones). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 7, the combination enables:
wherein the wireless audio communication profile comprises a list of preferred audio capture devices, indicating a preference for the preferred audio capture devices on the audio access point transceiver (e.g. Bodley, par. 43, 47, 48 – the base station can comprise configuration settings indicating a preference of audio capture devices, such as for selecting one a particular headset/microphone over another, selectively muting/unmuting certain devices, selectively isolating particular devices).
.
Regarding claim 8, the combination enables:
wherein the second pairing validation operation comprising a channel assignment operation is executed based on a triggering event (e.g. Bodley, par. 51-62).
Regarding claim 11, the combination enables:
wherein the triggering event comprises at least one of a pairing event between a pairing audio capture device and the audio access point transceiver, and an unpairing event between an unpairing audio capture device and the audio access point transceiver (e.g. Bodley, par. 51-62).
Regarding claim 12, the combination enables:
wherein the pairing event follows the pairing audio capture device being disposed in electrical communication with the audio access point transceiver via a docking port of the audio access point transceiver (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 13, the combination enables:
wherein the pairing event is initiated based on the pairing audio capture device being disposed in a wireless communication proximity to the audio access point transceiver (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 11, 69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 14, the combination enables:
wherein the wireless communication proximity of the pairing audio capture device to the audio access point transceiver is based on a transmission range of a beacon signal (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 11, 60, 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 16, the combination enables:
wherein the channel assignment operation assigns one or more audio capture devices to respective audio channel frequencies based on an audio channel allocation algorithm (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 62, 74-76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39).
Regarding claim 17, the combination enables:
wherein the audio channel allocation algorithm determines an audio channel frequency for an audio capture device based on a historical utilization of one or more audio channel frequencies (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 58, 62, 74-76 – device to channel registrations – i.e. “historical utilization” determines a next channel allocation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39). .
Regarding claim 18, the combination enables:
wherein the audio channel allocation algorithm determines an audio channel frequency for an audio capture device based on one or more device status properties of the audio capture device (e.g. Bodley-2, par. 58, 62, 74-76 –registration status of the microphone determines a next channel allocation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39). .
Regarding claim 19, the combination enables:
wherein the device status properties of the audio capture device comprise at least one of identity information of the audio capture device, an audio capture device type, an audio capture device role, and a power state of the audio capture device (e.g. Bodley-2, fig. 5; par. 37, 62, 74-76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39). .
Regarding claim 20, the combination enables:
wherein the audio channel allocation algorithm comprises a waiting queue, wherein the waiting queue comprises one or more audio capture devices paired to the audio access point transceiver awaiting an assigned audio channel frequency (e.g. Bodley-2, fig. 3a; fig. 4a; par. 62, 74-76 – herein a queue of microphones can await pairing and an assigned channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings of Bodley-2 within the system of Bodley because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the explicit direction of Bodley to incorporate the teachings of Bodley-2 (e.g. Bodley, par. 39). .
.
Regarding claims 77 – 97, they are method and program claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons. Furthermore because the combination enables computer instructions and a medium (e.g. Bodley, 31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495