DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunko et al. (US 2008/0081558 A1), hereinafter “Dunko,” in view of Joo et al. (US 2015/0007066 A1), hereinafter “Joo.”
As to claim 1, Dunko discloses a method for modifying an audio output of a playback device (¶0001), comprising:
determining that a portable electronic device is in proximity with the playback device while the portable electronic device is outputting audio (¶0020 and ¶0030, Fig. 5. “The process of placing NFC devices in close proximity to enable data transfer is referred to as "touching" or "swiping."” “The user initiates the handover by “touching” the source and target playback devices 10, 12.”);
initiating, by the portable electronic device, a communication to the playback device (¶0030, Fig. 5. “The source and target playback devices 10, 12 perform an authentication procedure and exchange device information about their respective capabilities as previously described.”);
transferring audio output from the portable electronic device to the playback device by fading out the audio from the portable electronic device while fading in the audio from the playback device (Dunko, ¶0005. “Special effects, such as ramping and/or fading can be applied while transitioning from the source playback device to the target playback device.”).
Dunko does not expressly disclose a smart speaker.
However, Dunko (¶0014) discloses that the playback device “refers to any device capable of playing audio and/or video works including without limitation digital audio players, digital video players, home and car stereo systems, portable radios, portable televisions, communication devices 10 with audio and/or video playback capabilities, and computing devices 10 with audio and video playback capabilities.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a playback device would include a smart speaker, as it is a device capable of playing audio.
Dunko does not expressly disclose fading in and fading out simultaneously.
However, based on the portion of Dunko cited above (¶0005), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Either you ramp up (fade in) the target playback device before fading out the source playback device, or you ramp up (fade in) the target playback device while simultaneously fading out the source playback device. The simultaneous option being more desirable as it would maintain a constant combined output level throughout.
Dunko does not expressly disclose providing a haptic output from the portable electronic device that varies in strength, intensity, frequency, or pattern while fading out the audio from the portable electronic device.
Joo discloses providing a haptic output from the portable electronic device that varies in strength, intensity, frequency, or pattern while fading out the audio from the portable electronic device (¶0087, ¶0106, ¶0171, ¶0235-0236, Fig. 13-14. “The control unit may provide feedback to a user in response to content file transmission progression. The provided feedback may be provided as at least one of… a haptic feedback.” “At least one feedback may be maintained from the transmission start to the transmission completion of the external device B 200.” “the vibration motor 164 may provide various types of haptic feedback (e.g., the intensity of vibration and a vibration duration time).” “a haptic feedback (e.g., a haptic pattern).” “A content for transmission target may include at least one of… audio files…”).
Dunko and Joo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to data transfer between devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide haptic feedback, as taught by Joo. The motivation would have been to use additional feedback to notify the user of the transmission progress (Joo, ¶0058).
As to claim 4, Dunko in view of Joo discloses identifying, by the smart speaker, the audio outputted by the portable electronic device (Dunko, ¶0030-0032, Fig. 5. “If the source playback device 10 is in a playback mode, it transfers playback information to the target playback device [12] (step d).”);
identifying, by the smart speaker, a transition part of the audio (Dunko, ¶0030-0032, Fig. 5. “The location index enables the target playback device 12 to continue playback from the same location in a song or work after the handover is complete.”);
determining, by the smart speaker, whether the smart speaker stores a copy of the audio (Dunko, ¶0030-0032, Fig. 5. May be pre-recorded work stored in memory.)); and
in the event the smart speaker stores a copy of the audio, initiating output of the audio from the smart speaker during the transition part (Dunko, ¶0030-0032, Fig. 5. “If the source playback device 10 is in a playback mode, it transfers playback information to the target playback device 10 (step d). At the same time, the source playback device 10 sends a confirmation signal to the target playback device 12. The target playback device 12 begins playback and sends an acknowledgment signal (steps e and f).”).
As to claim 5, Dunko in view of Joo discloses the initiation of the communication to the smart speaker is performed in response to a predetermined gesture or motion of the portable electronic device (Dunko, ¶0027 and ¶0029. “Transfer of playback is initiated by "touching" the target playback device 12 with the source playback device 10.” “The user can transfer playback to the target playback device 12 in a single swipe by simply "touching" the source and target playback devices 10, 12.” See also Joo, ¶0048. “The portable device 100 may include a device for transmitting/receiving data to/from a connectible another external device by using an interaction (e.g., a touch or a touch gesture) inputted from a touch screen of the portable device 100.”).
As to claim 6, Dunko in view of Joo discloses providing, by the smart speaker, a visual output while transferring audio output from the portable electronic device to the smart speaker (Joo, ¶0183-0184. “The provided feedback may be provided as at least one of a visual feedback.” “The visual feedback may display on the touch screen a visual effect (e.g., an animation effect such as fade applied to an additional image besides the directional layer 510) responding to the content transmission of the external device B 200.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a visual output, as taught by Joo. The motivation would have been to use additional feedback to notify the user of the transmission progress (Joo, ¶0058).
Claim 7 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above, with further reference made to Dunko Fig. 2 showing the audio output device 30 of the playback devices, and Joo, ¶0184 disclosing vibration motor 164 to generate the haptic feedback.
Claim 10 is rejected under claim 7 using the same motivation as claims 5 above.
Claim 11 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claims 4-6 above.
Claims 2, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunko in view of Joo, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Wilberding et al. (US 2020/0280800 A1, references made to provisional application 62/811,962 filed 2/28/19 – copy included in parent application 16/916,738).
As to claim 2, Dunko in view of Joo does not expressly disclose determining that the portable electronic device is in proximity with the smart speaker comprises detecting the audio by the smart speaker.
Wilberding discloses determining that the portable electronic device is in proximity with the smart speaker comprises detecting the audio by the smart speaker (Wilberding, ¶0269. “Alternatively, the paired control device 130a (Figure 7F) detects proximity to the playback devices 110a-n via one or more sensors… In further examples, the paired control device 130a may detect proximity by using a microphone to detect ultrasonic tones (or other signals) emitted by one or more of the playback devices.” Audio is another signal that a playback device emits that a microphone can pick up.).
Dunko and Wilberding are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to playback swapping.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect proximity with a microphone, as taught by Wilberding. The motivation would have been that it is one of many proximity detection alternatives (Wilberding, ¶0269).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under claims 7 and 11 using the same motivation as claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunko in view of Joo, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond et al. (US 2015/0004912 A1), hereinafter “Diamond.”
As to claim 3, Dunko in view of Joo does not expressly disclose wherein determining that the portable electronic device is in proximity with the smart speaker comprises transmitting an optical communication between the smart speaker and the portable electronic device.
Diamond discloses wherein determining that the portable electronic device is in proximity with the smart speaker comprises transmitting an optical communication between the smart speaker and the portable electronic device (Diamond, ¶0077, Fig. 1. “In some embodiments, the sensed component includes an optical component, and the sensing component includes an optical sensor. In such embodiments, sensing physical proximity can further include deeming the first device and the second device to be in physical proximity when the optical component is detectable by the optical sensor.).
Dunko, Joo and Diamond are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to data transfer between devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical signal to determine proximity, as taught by Diamond. The motivation would have been applying a known technique for proximity sensing to a known device to yield predictable results (detecting proximity).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under claims 7 and 11 using the same motivation as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mitic et al. (US 2019/0318069 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights