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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 7-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wilberding et al., US 12,210,797 in view of Bangma et al., US 2016/0269771.
Regarding claim 1, Wilberding discloses an audio playback method, comprising:
a broadcast device obtaining audio-to-be-played from a source device via a unicast link (figure 130 1a-1b and 860 16a, col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24); and
when indicated by the source device to apply a party mode to play the audio-to-be-played, the broadcast device serving as a broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to at least one playback device, so as to play the audio-to-be-played through the at least one playback device (col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24, col. 59, line 5-67, col. 64, lines 14-21).
Wilberding is silent about the broadcast device comprises a unicast communication module and an audio dispatcher, the unicast communication module transmits the audio-to-be-played, to the audio dispatcher, and the audio dispatcher caches the audio-to-be-played.
In an analogous art, Bangma discloses the broadcast device comprises a unicast communication module (328 figure 3) and an audio dispatcher (334 figure 3), the unicast communication module transmits the audio-to-be-played, to the audio dispatcher, and the audio dispatcher caches the audio-to-be-played (figure 3, paragraph 93-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilberding’s method with the teachings of Bangma. The motivation would have been to synchronize the media for the benefit of providing the best possible experience.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wilberding and Bangma disclose the audio playback method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the broadcast device serving as the broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to the at least one playback device, so as to play the audio-to-be-played through the at least one playback device, comprises: the broadcast device serving as the broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to the at least one playback device, so as to play the audio-to-be-played synchronously through the broadcast device and the at least one playback device (Wilberding col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24, col. 59, line 5-67, col. 64, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 7, Wilberding and Bangma disclose the audio playback method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the broadcast device comprises a Bluetooth communication module, wherein the Bluetooth communication module comprises a broadcast communication module and a unicast communication module;
wherein the broadcast device obtaining the audio-to-be-played from the source device via the unicast link comprises the unicast communication module obtaining the audio-to-be-played via the unicast link (Wilberding col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24, col. 59, line 5-67, col. 64, lines 14-21);
wherein when indicated by the source device to apply the party mode to play the audio-to-be-played, the broadcast device serving as the broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to the at least one playback device, so as to play the audio-to-be-played through the at least one playback device, comprises:
in the Bluetooth communication module, the unicast communication module sending the audio-to-be-played to the broadcast communication module, so as to make the broadcast media module broadcast the audio-to-be-played to the at least one playback device using a broadcast media sender function (Wilberding col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24, col. 59, line 5-67, col. 64, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 9, Wilberding and Bangma disclose the audio playback method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the broadcast device serving as the broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to the at least one playback device, so as to play the audio-to-be-played through the at least one playback device, comprises: the broadcast device serving as the broadcast media sender and broadcasting the audio-to-be-played to at least two playback devices, so as to play the audio-to-be-played synchronously through the at least two playback devices (Wilberding col. 8, line 63 to col. 11, line 24, col. 59, line 5-67, col. 64, lines 14-21).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wilberding in view of Bangma in view of Huang et al., US 2024/0224115.
Regarding claim 3, Wilberding and Bangma disclose the audio playback method as claimed in claim 1.
Wilberding and Bangma are silent about the broadcast device and the at least one playback device playing the audio-to-be-played after a preset period from a time when the broadcast device starts broadcasting the audio-to-be-played; wherein the preset time is a playback delay which the broadcast device and the at least one playback device have previously agreed on.
In an analogous art, Huang discloses the broadcast device and the at least one playback device playing the audio-to-be-played after a preset period from a time when the broadcast device starts broadcasting the audio-to-be-played; wherein the preset time is a playback delay which the broadcast device and the at least one playback device have previously agreed on (figure 3-4, paragraph 16-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilberding and Bangma’s method with the teachings of Huang. The motivation would have been to synchronize the audio for the benefit of providing the best possible experience.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wilberding in view of Bangma in view of Vautrin et al., US 11,870,475.
Regarding claim 8, Wilberding and Bangma disclose the audio playback method as claimed in claim 7.
Wilberding and Bangma are silent about the unicast link is an A2DP link.
In an analogous art, Vautrin discloses the unicast link is an A2DP link (col. 37, lines 20-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilberding and Bangma’s method with the teachings of Vautrin. The motivation would have been to provide a high quality audio for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights