CTNF 18/936,004 CTNF 89858 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 7-9 and 17-19 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. Claim 7 and 17 recites “wherein, based on the at least one speaker being selected to output the target sound in a mobility , the mode includes a state…”. It is unclear, what applicant is trying to claim with stating “in a mobility”. Appropriate correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 2-6 and 12-16 is/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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelissen US Pat 8,190,438 . Regarding claim 1 and 11, Nelissen teaches a main speaker; a sub-speaker configured to output a sound independently from the main speaker (Fig. 1 & Col. 2 line 43-48: individually addressable loudspeakers); a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: identifying whether at least one of media content or an application for playing the media content is being executed (Fig. 1 & Col. 5 line 47-52: the system determines that music is being played in front of driver-104); receiving a request signal for requesting an output of a sound (Fig. 1 & Col. 5 line 44-46: requesting that “Turn Left” has to output through the car speakers); identifying, based on at least one of a priority of the sound associated with the request signal, a sound from the main speaker, or a sound from the sub-speaker, at least one speaker, among the main speaker and the sub-speaker, to output a target sound; and outputting, via the identified at least one speaker, the target sound (Fig. 1 & Col. 5 line 52-63 & Col. 8 line 58-63: if the request has higher priority, for example, user’s current girlfriend call, then output the call in front of the user and send other sound to be play at the back 10ft away from the user). While Nelissen failed to explicitly teach requesting an output of a sound via at least one the main speaker or sub-speaker. However, when any incoming request comes in to play an audio signal like navigation or the current girlfriend call, the system itself is determining based on priority what loudspeaker to select based on priority and what is being played and where. are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, the audio signal will be output by at least one of the speaker . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelissen US Pat 8,190,438 in view of Goose US PG-Pub 2006/0262935 . Regarding claim 10 and 20, Nelissen teaches a display for guidance of a user to output a target sound (Fig. 4A-Fig. 4D). Nelissen failed to teach a main display coupled with the main speaker; and a sub-display coupled with the sub-speaker, wherein the operations further comprise: outputting, via at least one of the main display or the sub-display, guidance to a user to output the target sound via at least one of the main speaker or the sub-speaker. However, Goose teaches a main display coupled with the main speaker; and a sub-display coupled with the sub-speaker, wherein the operations further comprise: outputting, via at least one of the main display or the sub-display, guidance to a user to output the target sound via at least one of the main speaker or the sub-speaker (Fig. 4 & Fig. 9 & [0037]: having personalized speakers for each section and a display for each section so user & [0040]: there being a master that can guide the user to select what audio will be play at what section). Nelissen and Goose are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because it is an inventor choice to have multiple display and loudspeaker within an environment, to provide each individual access to control and sound. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm. 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 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. /WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/936,004 Page 2 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/936,004 Page 3 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/936,004 Page 4 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/936,004 Page 5 Art Unit: 2695
Prosecution Insights