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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-5, 9, 14-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes et al. (2005/0089177).
As to claim 1, Hughes teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of an audio output device and based on identifying environmental audio in a surrounding environment (i.e., inside vehicle or an automobile), a current context (driving with window open/close or driving with certain speed of an automobile) in which the audio output device is being operated ([0016-0020, 0032-0034, 0039-0040]);
determining, while operating in the current context and based on identifying audio in the surrounding environment that deviates from the environmental audio, a type of deviating audio ([0032-0034] – current context would be closed window and when changing from closed to open window noise level would increase; Figs. 4A-4D –changing audio type from talk radio to rock);
determining, based on detecting an adjustment to a setting of the audio output device after detecting the deviating audio, an audio setting preference (abstract, [6, 19, 31, 33-46, 52-53]); and
automatically adjusting to the audio setting preference in response to detecting a subsequent audio that matches the type of deviating audio ([0006] - intelligent volume control for an audio system that adjusts a volume level based on several input parameters. The input parameters may vary depending upon the environment of the audio system…As values for the input parameters change, the volume control performs statistical analysis on the stored data point to predict a desired volume level. The audio system then adjusts the volume to the predicted level. The listener may then override the volume level and set another data point. Thus, the volume control of the present invention learns from the volume levels set by the listener and the values of the input parameters; [0019-0020] - data processing system 100 includes an intelligent volume control that adjusts a volume level based on input parameters. The input parameters may vary depending upon the environment of the audio system. For example, if the data processing system is located in a user's bedroom, the data processing system may receive input from a sensor that measures a noise level. Therefore, if environmental noise increases due to people outside the room talking or a person using a vacuum cleaner, the volume control will adjust the volume accordingly; Figs. 4A-4D – for example, changing audio type from talk radio to rock and volume level change from 6.5 to 9.0).
As to claim 2, Hughes teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining the current context is based on identification of a connection to a second device different than the audio output device ([0032-0034] – current speed, noise level, window open/closed, and audio type from a connection to rock music on a CD, a radio station, a MP3).
As to claim 3, Hughes teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the adjustment of the setting of the audio output device is input at the audio output device or the second device ([0006] - intelligent volume control for an audio system that adjusts a volume level based on several input parameters. The input parameters may vary depending upon the environment of the audio system. The listener may manually set a volume to a desired level relative to environmental noise and interference; [0028] - Volume level may be adjusted in preamplifier 206 by manipulating volume control knob 223; [0032] - if a window is open on the passenger's side of an automobile, the balance may be adjusted to increase the volume on that side. If the windows are open in the back of an automobile, the fade may be adjusted to increase the volume in the rear speakers; [0047] - receives user input setting the volume level (step 502) and adjusts the volume according to the user input (step 504)).
As to claim 4 and 16, Hughes teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the audio output device of claim 14, wherein the current context includes a specified location in which the audio output device is being operated ([0032] - For example, if a window is open on the passenger's side of an automobile, the balance may be adjusted to increase the volume on that side. If the windows are open in the back of an automobile, the fade may be adjusted to increase the volume in the rear speaker; [0019] - if the data processing system is located in a user's bedroom, the data processing system may receive input from a sensor that measures a noise level. Therefore, if environmental noise increases due to people outside the room talking or a person using a vacuum cleaner, the volume control will adjust the volume accordingly).
As to claim 5, Hughes teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the current context includes a specified environment in which the audio output device is being operated ([0044] - FIG. 4B shows a data point for which the automobile was traveling 26 MPH, the external noise level had a value of 20, the windows were closed, the user was listening to rock music, and the volume was set at 7.0. Clearly, the listener prefers to listen to rock music at a higher volume level, especially considering the lower speed and lower external noise level; [0032] - For example, if a window is open on the passenger's side of an automobile, the balance may be adjusted to increase the volume on that side. If the windows are open in the back of an automobile, the fade may be adjusted to increase the volume in the rear speaker; [0019] - if the data processing system is located in a user's bedroom, the data processing system may receive input from a sensor that measures a noise level. Therefore, if environmental noise increases due to people outside the room talking or a person using a vacuum cleaner, the volume control will adjust the volume accordingly).
As to claim 9, Hughes teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the adjustment of the setting of the audio output device is associated with the current context, the environmental audio, the deviating audio, or a combination thereof (Figs. 4A-4D; [0019, , 0032, 0043-0045]).
As to claim 15, Hughes teaches the audio output device of claim 14, wherein the current context is based on identification of a connection to a second device different than the audio output device ([0032-0034] – current speed, noise level, window open/closed, and audio type from a connection to rock music on a CD, a radio station, a MP3 and if a window is open on the passenger's side of an automobile, the balance may be adjusted to increase the volume on that side. If the windows are open in the back of an automobile, the fade may be adjusted to increase the volume in the rear speakers); and the adjustment of the setting of the audio output device is input at the audio output device or the second device ([0006] - intelligent volume control for an audio system that adjusts a volume level based on several input parameters. The input parameters may vary depending upon the environment of the audio system. The listener may manually set a volume to a desired level relative to environmental noise and interference; [0028] - Volume level may be adjusted in preamplifier 206 by manipulating volume control knob 223; [0032] - if a window is open on the passenger's side of an automobile, the balance may be adjusted to increase the volume on that side. If the windows are open in the back of an automobile, the fade may be adjusted to increase the volume in the rear speakers; [0047] - receives user input setting the volume level (step 502) and adjusts the volume according to the user input (step 504)).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Hughes teaches one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions ([0024-0025, 0054]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 6, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hughes et al. (2005/0089177) in view of Gopinath (2016/0165031).
As to claims 6 and 17, Hughes does not explicitly discussed the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the audio output device of claim 14, wherein identifying the deviating audio comprises detecting a name, a nickname, or one or more words associated with a user of the audio output device.
Gopinath teaches adjusting audio settings based on a type of content being output. For example, the in-vehicle computing system determine a type of music (e.g., based on an identifier of a radio station and/or other audio source providing the music, or based on an analysis of the audio being output), whether the audio includes spoken word ([0066]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gopinath into the teachings of Hughes for the purpose of adjusting audio settings based on spoken words associated with a user, a talk radio program and/or a voice call for another mobile device being played out over the speakers.
As to claim 10, Gopinath teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the deviating audio comprises detecting one or more words spoken associated with a user of the audio output device ([0066] - adjusting audio settings based on a type of content being output. For example, the in-vehicle computing system determine a type of music (e.g., based on an identifier of a radio station and/or other audio source providing the music, or based on an analysis of the audio being output), whether the audio includes spoken word).
5. Claims 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Ramo et al. (2014/0376728).
As to claims 7 and 18, Hughes does not explicitly discuss the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the audio output device of claim 14, wherein identifying the deviating audio comprises detecting a change in the environmental audio from a specified direction relative to the audio output device or a user of the audio output device. However, Hughes teaches sensors that detect interior or exterior noise levels, global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, etc. ([0029]).
Ramo teaches determining, based on a direction associated with the subsequent audio ([0092] - the acoustical identifier panned at a correct position in the channel corresponding to the direction of the arriving sound), providing a direction identifier being indicative on the direction of the arriving sound from the at least one detected audio source based on the information on the direction of the arriving sound from the audio source of interest stored previously ([0101]); and if there is a sufficient similarity between the sound of the captured audio signal and one sound profile of the database then determined that the audio source associated with this sound profile of the database is detected and thus the audio signal captured from the environment of the apparatus arriving sound from this type of audio source with determining the direction of the sound ([0184]); it would have been obvious that since the capture audio signal similar to the audio setting sound profile and determining direction of the sound to apply the audio setting preference associated with the audio profile when the audio matches audio associated with the audio profile.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ramo into the teachings of Hughes for the purposes of selecting sound profile of the database that best similarity with the sound of the captured audio signal in order to determine that an audio source of interest is detected and determining the direction of the sound.
As to claim 11, Hughes does not explicitly discuss the computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising determining, based on a direction associated with the subsequent audio, a degree to which to apply the audio setting preference in response to detecting the subsequent audio.
Ramo teaches determining, based on a direction associated with the subsequent audio ([0092] - the acoustical identifier panned at a correct position in the channel corresponding to the direction of the arriving sound), providing a direction identifier being indicative on the direction of the arriving sound from the at least one detected audio source based on the information on the direction of the arriving sound from the audio source of interest stored previously ([0101]); and if there is a sufficient similarity between the sound of the captured audio signal and one sound profile of the database then determined that the audio source associated with this sound profile of the database is detected and thus the audio signal captured from the environment of the apparatus arriving sound from this type of audio source with determining the direction of the sound ([0184]); it would have been obvious that since the capture audio signal similar to the audio setting sound profile and determining direction of the sound to apply the audio setting preference associated with the audio profile when the audio matches audio associated with the audio profile.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ramo into the teachings of Hughes for the purposes of selecting sound profile of the database that best similarity with the sound of the captured audio signal in order to determine that an audio source of interest is detected and determining the direction of the sound.
6. Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hughes et al. (2005/0089177) in view of Hamre et al. (TW 202042184 A).
As to claims 8 and 19, Hughes does not explicitly discuss the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the audio output device of claim 14, wherein identifying the deviating audio comprises detecting a sound or one or more words indicative of an emergency or an urgent situation.
Hamre teaches the emergency detection module 155 detect that the user has pressed a button on the wearable device, has requested assistance through the user application 102, and/or has input an audio signal indicating an emergency (for example, a scream or shout Sound) provided to the base station or wireless device or has spoken one or more words on a trigger list (for example, "help", "urgent", "oops", etc.) (MODE-OF-INVENTION, 14th paragraph).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hamre into the teachings of Hughes for the purpose of automatically triggers the emergency response stream based on determining that the emergency event have occurred.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes.
As to claim 13, Hughes does not explicitly discuss the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting, based on determining that the subsequent audio has ceased, a setting of the audio output device associated with the audio setting preference to a state prior to applying the audio setting preference.
However, Hughes teaches Volume prediction 312 may be stored as a data point, which identifies the predicted volume level with respect to a given set of parameters. For example, volume prediction 312 may be a number between 0 and 10, where 10 is the loudest, although the numerical range convention may vary depending upon the implementation. The volume prediction module 310 may continuously fill in data points even when the audio system is not producing audio output. In other words, whenever sensor data is sampled, the volume prediction module may generate a prediction, which may be stored as a data point as if the user deliberately set the value. These data points may be identified as predictions using, for example, a flag or Boolean variable to distinguish these points from data points actually set by the user. Prediction data points may be overridden with manually selected volume level data points and may be recalculated as input variables change. The volume may then be adjusted in real time by retrieving a data point that is closest to the input parameters. Alternatively, volume prediction 312 may be used to adjust the volume of the audio system on the fly ([0039]). FIGS. 4A-4D depict example data points for volume levels in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4A, a data point may include a date/time, speed, noise level, window status, audio type, and volume level. In the example shown in FIG. 4A, the automobile was traveling 51 MPH, the external noise level had a value of 25, the windows were closed, the user was listening to talk radio, and the volume was set at 6.5 Figs. 4A-4D and [0043]) and if the windows are open, prediction module 310 may rule out any data points for which the windows were closed. The prediction module may also consider only data points for which a parameter is within an acceptable proximity to the corresponding input parameter.
It would have been obvious that when audio has ceased, adjusting a setting of the audio output device associated with the audio setting preference to a state prior to applying the audio setting preference to adjust the volume in real time by retrieving a data point that is closest to the input parameters back to as the window close from when the window open in order to have an acceptable volume.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 12 is 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.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
10. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,292. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 12,316,292 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/917,623
US Patent 12,316,292
1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of an audio output device and based on identifying environmental audio in a surrounding environment, a current context in which the audio output device is being operated;
determining, by one or more processors of an audio output device and based on identifying environmental audio in a surrounding environment, a current context in which the audio output device is being operated;
determining, while operating in the current context and based on identifying audio in the surrounding environment that deviates from the environmental audio, a type of deviating audio;
determining, while operating in the current context and based on identifying audio in the surrounding environment that deviates from the environmental audio, a type of deviating audio, the deviating audio comprising a conversation;
determining, based on detecting an adjustment to a setting of the audio output device after detecting the deviating audio, an audio setting preference;
determining, based on detecting an adjustment to a setting of the audio output device after detecting the deviating audio, an audio setting preference;
calculating, by the one or more processors, a probability that the audio setting preference is preferred by a user of the audio output device when the type of deviating audio is detected in the current context;
configuring, based on the probability satisfying a threshold and in accordance with the audio setting preference, at least one audio profile associated with the audio output device, wherein the audio profile automatically performs the adjustment to the setting of the audio output device in response to detecting a subsequent audio that a matches the type of deviating audio;
applying, based on detecting the subsequent audio that matches audio associated with the type of deviating audio, the audio setting preference associated with the at least one audio profile; and
automatically adjusting to the audio setting preference in response to detecting a subsequent audio that matches the type of deviating audio.
adjusting, based on determining that the subsequent audio has ceased, a setting of the audio output device associated with the audio setting preference to state prior to applying the audio setting preference.
The examiner also notes that claims 2, 12, 14, 20 of the ‘623 Application corresponds to Claims 2, 6, 9, 16 of the ‘292 patent.
11. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,685,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 9,685,926 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/917,623
US Patent 9,685,926
1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
15. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of an audio output device and based on identifying environmental audio in a surrounding environment, a current context in which the audio output device is being operated;
determining, while operating in the current context and based on identifying audio in the surrounding environment that deviates from the environmental audio, a type of deviating audio;
detecting, by an audio sensor of an audio output device, ambient sound in an environment and an audio occurrence in the environment that deviates from the ambient sound in the environment;
accessing, by a controller of the audio output device, a plurality of audio preferences and recognition data for the audio occurrence, wherein one of the plurality of audio preferences comprises a sound profile for an audio setting of the audio output device in response to detecting the ambient sound and the audio occurrence, and wherein the recognition data for the audio occurrence is generated based on past audio occurrences occurring with adjustments to audio settings of the speaker;
determining, based on detecting an adjustment to a setting of the audio output device after detecting the deviating audio, an audio setting preference;
determining, by the controller of the audio output device, the one or the plurality of audio preferences based on the ambient and the audio occurrence received from the audio sensor, wherein the one of the plurality of audio preferences is further determined using the audio occurrence with the recognition data;
determining a probability of a user’s preference for the one of the plurality of audio preferences in response to the ambient sound or the audio occurrence; and
automatically adjusting to the audio setting preference in response to detecting a subsequent audio that matches the type of deviating audio.
adjusting, by the controller of the audio output device, the audio settings of the speaker based on the one of the plurality of audio preferences when the probability exceeds a threshold.
The examiner also notes that claim 14 of the ‘623 Application corresponds to Claims 1 of the ‘926 patent.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights