DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
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.
Claim(s) {1-2, 6-7}; { 8-9, 11, 13-14} & {15-16} are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (s) {1, 5, 2 } & {8, 12-14 } & {15, 19} of U.S. Patent No. (12,197,810 B2) and in view of Lafata (US 9,641,576 B2).
Although, the patented claim(s) 8 disclose of the similar features in comparison to the instant claim(s), nonetheless, the prior patent lacked of the additional method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on the detecting. However, Lafata et al. disclose of a similar method wherein synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting (col.8 line 60-70; col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15/synchronization of inputs prevent echo). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with detecting of watermark by adding there to such method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
Claim (s) 2, 6 in substance disclose of the similar feature as in patented claim(s) 5, 2 respectively.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein synchronizing the first microphone associated with the first device and the second microphone associated with the second device comprises synchronizing the first microphone and the second microphone so that the first microphone and the second microphone operate in a multi-microphone scenario (laf-fig.1 (20); col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15).
Although, the patented claim(s) 8 disclose of the similar features in comparison to the instant claim(s), nonetheless, the prior patent lacked of the additional method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on the detecting. However, Lafata et al. disclose of a similar method wherein synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting (col.8 line 60-70; col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15/synchronization of inputs prevent echo). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with detecting of watermark by adding there to such method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
Claim (s) 9, 11, 13 in substance disclose of the similar feature as in patented claim(s) 12-14 respectively.
14. The system of claim 8, wherein, when synchronizing the first microphone associated with the first device and the second microphone associated with the second device, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform synchronizing the first microphone and the second microphone so that the first microphone and the second microphone operate in a multi-microphone scenario (laf-fig.1 (20); col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15).
Although, the patented claim(s) 15 disclose of the similar features in comparison to the instant claim(s), nonetheless, the prior patent lacked of the additional method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on the detecting. However, Lafata et al. disclose of a similar method wherein synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting (col.8 line 60-70; col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15/synchronization of inputs prevent echo). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with detecting of watermark by adding there to such method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
Claim (s) 16 in substance disclose of the similar feature as in patented claim(s) 19 respectively.
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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2022/0415333 A1) and Lafata (US 9,641,576 B2).
Claim 1, Zhu disclose of a computer-implemented method comprising: connecting, by a first device, to a communication session in which a plurality of devices communicate, the plurality of devices including the first device and a second device (fig.1 (101); par [5, 34]/the plurality of devise participating in the communication session), 9the first device outputting first audio that includes a first audio watermark associated with the communication session, and the second device outputting second audio that includes a second audio watermark associated with the communication session (par [7, 38-39, 44, 141]/multiples terminals and output audio accompany with watermark); detecting, by the first device, the second audio watermark in the second audio output by the second device and generate action accordingly to respectively terminals and based on watermarks (par [44, 81, 182]/each terminal with watermark to detect if in same space based on identifying watermarks).
Nonetheless, Zhu never specify of the action as related to synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on the detecting. However, Lafata et al. disclose of a similar method wherein synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting (col.8 line 60-70; col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15/synchronization of inputs prevent echo). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with detecting of watermark by adding there to such method as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first audio watermark includes an identifier associated with the communication session and a first identifier associated with the first device, and the second audio watermark includes the identifier associated with the communication session and a second identifier associated with the second device (Zhu-abstract; par [44]).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: identifying, by the first device, a type of device of the second device based on the first identifier associated with the first device (zhu-par [44, 50, 97]).
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a message to a server associated with supporting the communication session, the message indicating that the second audio watermark has been detected by the first device (zhu-fig.2 (202); par [44]).
Claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein synchronizing the first microphone associated with the first device and the second microphone associated with the second device is performed as mentioned, although the prior art never limit of the synchronization is performed by the server.
However, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the noted module which implement the synchronization by specifying if desired such noted server as also performing the synchronization I for achieving the same result so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, by the second device, the first audio watermark in the first audio output by the first device (zhu-par [141, 149]).
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein synchronizing the first microphone associated with the first device and the second microphone associated with the second device comprises synchronizing the first microphone and the second microphone so that the first microphone and the second microphone operate in a multi-microphone scenario (laf-fig.1 (20); col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15).
Claim 8, zhu et al. disclose of a system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the one or more memories, for executing the instructions to cause performance of: connecting a first device to a communication session in which a plurality of devices communicate, the plurality of devices including the first device and a second device (fig.1 (101); par [5, 34]), the first device outputting first audio that includes a first audio watermark associated with the communication session, and the second device outputting second audio that includes a second audio watermark associated with the communication session (par [7, 38-39, 44, 141]/multiples terminals and output audio accompany with watermark); detecting the second audio watermark in the second audio output by the second device and device and generate action accordingly to respectively terminals and based on watermarks (par [44, 81, 182]/each terminal with watermark to detect if in same space based on identifying watermarks).
Nonetheless, Zhu never specify of the action as related to processor as synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on the detecting. However, Lafata et al. disclose of a similar processor perform synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting (col.8 line 60-70; col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15/synchronization of inputs prevent echo). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with detecting of watermark by adding there to such processor perform synchronizing a first microphone associated with the first device and a second microphone associated with the second device based on detecting so that undesired echo and feedback may be prevented.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the first audio watermark includes an identifier associated with the communication session and a first identifier associated with the first device, and the second audio watermark includes the identifier associated with the communication session and a second identifier associated with the second device Zhu-abstract; par [44]).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform identifying a type of device of the second device based on the first identifier associated with the first device (zhu-par [44, 50, 97]).
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform transmitting a message to a server associated with supporting the communication session, the message indicating that the second audio watermark has been detected by the first device (zhu-fig.2 (202); par [44]).
12. The system of claim 8, wherein the first device is a user device and the second device is also noted (fig.1 (101); par [34]).
However, the prior art never specify of a videoconference endpoint. Bu the examiner takes official notice having such a videoconference endpoint is well known in the art . thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the noted terminal for such videoconference endpoint so as to allow video communication.
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform embedding the first audio watermark in the first audio (zhu-fig.2 (205 ); fig.4 (404); par [51]).
14. The system of claim 8, wherein, when synchronizing the first microphone associated with the first device and the second microphone associated with the second device, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform synchronizing the first microphone and the second microphone so that the first microphone and the second microphone operate in a multi-microphone scenario (laf-fig.1 (20); col.12 line 50-67 & col.13 line 1-15).
The claim(s) 15-18 which in substance disclose of the similar features as in claim(s) 1-4 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the first device is a user device and the second device is also mentioned (fig.1 (101); par [34]).
However, the prior art never specify of a videoconference endpoint. Bu the examiner takes official notice having such a videoconference endpoint is well known in the art . thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the noted terminal for such videoconference endpoint so as to allow video communication.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations including embedding the first audio watermark in the first audio (zhu-fig.2 (205 ); fig.4 (404); par [51]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights