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 § 112
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.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites that based on a power level comparison to a threshold “the one or more audio processing operations that are selected to bypass include: the ECNS processing operations, and pre-processing operations, post-processing operations, or a combination thereof.” This is considered indefinite as the recited list comprises an inconsistent recitation of the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” such that the operations required to be in the bypassed set cannot be reasonably determined.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen: 20230092994 hereinafter Bo further in view of Hodges: 20140241540 hereinafter Ho and further in view of Avendano: 20240029754 hereinafter Av.
Regarding claim 1
Bo teaches:
A device comprising: a memory configured to store processing configuration data that indicates one or more processing configurations; and one or more processors coupled to the memory (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 59; Fig 3: such as first, second, etc. processor operative to execute instructions from first second memory) the one or more processors configured to:
select, based on a power indicator, a processing configuration of the one or more processing configurations (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 34, 35, 75, etc.: system determines offload configuration based on battery level of a first and/or second ear piece, bud, etc. relationship to a threshold and determines to transfer, offload or load balance tasks based thereon); and
based on the selected processing configuration (id.):
send an indicator to a second device to receive an offload one or more audio processing operations (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 34, 35, 51, 75: device sends indicator comprising identifiers to an auxiliary device to receive a task, data, etc. thereof);
configure the one or more processors to selectively bypass the one or more audio processing operations (Bo: 51, 56, 75: on offload the device ceases performing all or portions of a task sent to the auxiliary device); and
send, to the second device, microphone audio data based on an audio input received by a microphone (Bo: ¶ 35, 39, 46, 66: device communicates task, data for use therein to the auxiliary device; such as sound acquired by a microphone which comprises a task, data thereof, etc.).
Bo does not explicitly discuss a host for receiving an indicator and for performance of processing nor a bypass to explicitly disable a process on the device by the sending of an indicator to a host device, nor the explicit sending of microphone audio to a host device for audio processing.
In a related field of endeavor Ho teaches a system and method for triggering processing offload between a wearable device and a host device (Ho: Abstract; ¶ 31, 59; Fig 1, 2: a wearable device operates to trigger more complex audio processing on a host device such as based on battery power remaining) comprising:
a memory configured to store processing configuration data that indicates one or more processing configurations (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: an audio hierarchy directs processing tier data based on one or more configurations of processing based on determined levels, tiers, etc. of the hierarchy) operable thereby select, based on a power indicator, a processing configuration of the one or more processing configurations (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: system controls modes of operation based on a power condition with respect to the relative power consumption, complexity, etc. of the hierarchical tiers of processing, selects a processing configuration based thereon); and
based on the selected processing configuration (id.):
send an indicator to a host device to offload one or more audio processing operations (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: wearable device performs lower tiered operations of the processing hierarchy and upon determining a need for a higher tier sends a trigger activating the host device to perform a next tier of processing wherein the process of selection of processing tier for the wearable device, host device, etc. is dynamically directed by the host device);
configure the one or more processors to selectively bypass the one or more audio processing operations (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: such as by determining a battery level remaining upon the wearable device and offloading a tier of processing, data thereof to the host device); and
send, to the host device, audio data based on an audio input received by a microphone (Ho: Abstract; ¶ 4, 27-32, 59; Fig 2: such as by determining to output a delayed audio signal from the wearable device to the host device upon host device detection of a diminishing battery life of the wearable device with respect to the processing power for a task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the host and host processing selection architecture as taught or suggested by Ho to improve the processing offload based on battery level thresholding taught or suggested by the Bo device and method for at least the purpose of selecting by a host processor of particular processing configurations based on tiers of processing demand with respect to remaining battery life; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to locate the selection of processing, configuration thereof as taught or suggested by Bo in view of Ho upon the host device, client device, or an additional device in the system as doing so would merely comprise a simple substitution of the taught elements; Bo and Ho discuss devices which can be controlled dynamically to offload, split, and/or distribute processing tasks, subtasks, etc. and Bo: discloses the device to initiate the offload of processing (Bo: 51, 56, 75); Ho discloses the dynamic control thereof “e.g. under control of the host device,” (Ho ¶ 31) and thus control of the process by either is taught as is the reasonableness of locating the processing on either of the devices and expectation of predictability by such a substitution and/or by the dynamic control of processing among the devices; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Bo in view of Ho does not explicitly discuss the sending of microphone based, derived, etc. audio to an auxiliary devices for the performance of offloaded audio processing thereon.
In a related field of endeavor Av teaches a system and method for audio source separation and noise processing such as using neural networks for speech enhancement such as by noise suppression (Av: Abstract; ¶ 15, 80: memory borne instructions executed by a processor to perform speech, noise, etc. processing such as upon an instantiated neural network upon a companion device) wherein the system operates to receive audio input using at least one microphone, and transmit same to a companion device for audio processing including source separation, speech enhancement, noise suppression, etc. (Av: Abstract; ¶ 15, 80, 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Av taught method to offload the performance audio processing on the microphone audio to a companion device or host device to thereby improve the utilization of resources in the Bo in view of Ho system and method for battery and resource aware offloading for at least the purpose of improving speech enhancement, noise suppression, and attendant processing of a microphone derived speech signal in a power aware audio user interface of a wearable device by processing thereof on a host or companion device; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to obtain the power indicator and the power indicator indicates a power level of a battery of the device, a charging status of the battery of the device, or a combination thereof (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 31, 36, 49, etc.; Fig 3: such as by determining the battery level of the first, second, etc. battery of the first, second, etc. earpiece by the first, second, etc. processor; such as based on determined charge states thereof; communicating same with the system), (Ho: ¶ 31: system determines processing based on battery level of the host and wearable device). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an input that indicates, for the processing configuration, a threshold power level, the one or more audio processing operations, or a combination thereof (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 11, 29, 39, 49; Fig 3: system monitors batter level such as by one or more battery sensor which provide inputs to a first or second processor one or more programs, applications, inputs thereon directing communication of tasks, data thereof among the processors based on a threshold of battery level wherein the threshold may be set by a user; system additionally functions to receive input of audio processing operations as discussed in claim 1 supra). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform a comparison based on the power indicator and one or more thresholds, and wherein the processing configuration is selected based on a result of the comparison (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 11, 29, 39, 49; Fig 3: system directs processing based on a comparison of battery level and a threshold to determine a relationship of battery level and threshold and directs processing based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 4, wherein: the power indicator indicates a power level (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 34, 35, 75, etc.: system determines offload configuration based on battery level of a first and/or second ear piece, bud, etc. relationship to a threshold and determines to transfer, offload or load balance tasks based thereon); (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: system controls modes of operation based on a power condition with respect to the relative power consumption, complexity, etc. of the hierarchical tiers of processing, selects a processing configuration based thereon);
based on the power level being less than or equal to a first threshold of the one or more thresholds (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 34, 35, 56, 75, etc.); (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2), the one or more audio processing operations that are selected to bypass include echo cancellation noise suppression (ECNS) processing operations (Bo: ¶ 35, 56: offloadable operations include noise cancellation); (Ho: ¶ 32; Fig 2: the tiered approach offloads processing to a host device based on remaining battery life and complexity of processing; such as based on an amount of noise); (Av: ¶ 15, 80, 95: system sends microphone audio to a neural network upon a separate earbud or other companion device for offloaded processing of speech enhancement, noise processing, etc.); and
the indicator indicates to offload the ECNS processing operations of the one or more audio processing operations to an embedded neuron processing unit (ENPU) of the host device (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 34, 35, 56, 75, etc.: system determines offload configuration based on battery level of a first and/or second ear piece, bud, etc. relationship to a threshold and determines to transfer, offload or load balance tasks based thereon); (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: wearable device performs lower tiered operations of the processing hierarchy and upon determining a need for a higher tier sends a trigger activating the host device to perform a next tier of processing wherein the process of selection of processing tier for the wearable device, host device, etc. is dynamically directed by the host device); (Av: ¶ 15, 16, 47, 48, 80, 95, etc.; Fig 3: system receives audio input using at least one microphone, and transmits same to a companion device for audio processing including source separation, speech enhancement, noise suppression, etc. such as upon an instantiated neural network therefor). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 5, wherein, based on the power level being less than or equal to the first threshold of the one or more thresholds, the one or more audio processing operations that are selected to bypass include: the ECNS processing operations, and pre-processing operations, post-processing operations, or a combination thereof (Bo: ¶ 35, 56: multiple processing stages, including combinations thereof offloadable together and include stages at various points in a processing pipeline and include pre and post processing tasks necessary for audio processing and noise cancellation); (Ho: ¶ 52: processing stages from distinct hierarchy level of a processing pipeline controlled dynamically, split off onto host device, etc.); (Av: 15, 80, 95: plurality of pre-processing and post-processing stages for speech enhancement processing available for processing on companion device). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 6, wherein, after the one or more audio processing operations are offloaded to the host device, the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from the host device, a second indicator to perform the one or more audio processing operations (Bo: ¶ 34, 52: the offloading is bi directional, dynamic, reversible, etc. such that tasks may be re-allocated among devices, to a first device, etc.); (Ho: 30, 31; Fig 2: split controlled dynamically under control of the host device which issues instructions controlling which device performs particular operations of the hierarchy); (Av: ¶ 15, 16, 47, 48, 80, 95, etc.; Fig 3: companion device performs or allocates processing to be performed at the low power device);
configure the one or more processors to perform the one or more audio processing operations; perform the one or more audio processing operations on the audio input to generate processed microphone audio data (Bo: ¶ 52, 56: such that a first or particular device resumes processing); (Ho: 31, 47; Fig 2: wearable device configurable to perform particular levels of audio processing based on dynamically controlled split to produce processed audio); (Av: ¶ 15, 16, 47, 48, 62, 6380, 95, etc.; Fig 3: such as upon low power device configured to perform particular processing); and send the processed microphone audio data to the host device (Ho: 31, 47; Fig 2; Claim 8: system performs natural language speech detection such as upon delayed audio signal data on speech detection engine operative upon the host device). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an input that indicates to offload, to the host device, an echo cancellation (EC) operation, a noise suppression operation, a pre-processing operation, and a post-processing operation (Bo: ¶ 35, 39, 46, 56: system operates under voice direction or based on user presets to offload one or multiple particular processing stages, including combinations thereof offloadable together and include stages at various points in a processing pipeline and include pre and post processing tasks necessary for audio processing and noise cancellation; noise cancellation is considered an echo cancellation operation); (Ho: ¶ 32, 37, 52: user input directs or configures operations directing execution of processing stages from distinct hierarchy level of a processing pipeline controlled dynamically to split off onto host device, etc.); (Av: 15, 25, 56, 57, 80, 95: user selects options to direction operation of a plurality of pre-processing and post-processing stages for speech enhancement processing available for processing on companion device); and in response to the input, send another indicator to the host device to offload the EC operation, the noise suppression operation, the pre-processing operation, and the post-processing operation (Bo: ¶ 51, 56: transceiver operates to convey signaling indicative of processing decisions directing particular processing among devices of the system); (Ho: ¶ 26, 31: wireless signaling among devices directs implementation of processing stages thereon); (Av: 15, 25, 40, 56, 57, 80, 95: devices of the system provide audio information, parameters thereof for processing upon particular stages as directed and based on the audio input). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to receive, from the host device, a host power indicator that indicates a power level of a battery of the host device, a charging status of the battery of the host device, or a combination thereof (Bo: ¶ 34-36, 53: battery level and processing direct thereby communicated among devices of the system); (Ho: ¶ 27-32, 59; Fig 2: dynamic splitting instructions, data therefor communicated among devices of the system based on power states, levels, etc. of the devices of the system including host device and wearable device); (Av: ¶ 15: companion device power state governs offloading; indicia, signaling, etc. based thereon provided to low power device)
the processing configuration is further selected based on the host power indicator (Bo: ¶ 34, 41, 56: offload assignment governed based on battery levels); (Ho: ¶ 31: split of processing based on plural factors including host batter power); (Av: ¶ 15, etc.: offloading based on required power availability upon devices of the system, such as the capacity of the host to performed the required processing based on power availability) and the one or more audio processing operations include echo cancellation noise suppression (ECNS) operations, a noise suppression operation, a pre-processing operation, a post-processing operation, or a combination thereof (Bo: ¶ 35, 39, 46, 56: system operates under voice direction or based on user presets to offload one or multiple particular processing stages, including combinations thereof offloadable together and include stages at various points in a processing pipeline and include pre and post processing tasks necessary for audio processing and noise cancellation; noise cancellation is considered an echo cancellation operation); (Ho: ¶ 32, 37, 52: user input directs or configures operations directing execution of processing stages from distinct hierarchy level of a processing pipeline controlled dynamically to split off onto host device, etc.); (Av: 15, 25, 56, 57, 80, 95: user selects options to direction operation of a plurality of pre-processing and post-processing stages for speech enhancement processing available for processing on companion device). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein, to selectively bypass the one or more audio processing operations, the one or more processors are configured to deactivate (Bo: ¶ 37, 47, 56: offloaded task deactivated locally and local device instructed to cease or transfer the operation of selected processing to a second device thereby activated to perform particular processing); (Ho: ¶ 28, 43: host directed deactivation of processing on the wearable and activated upon the host); (Av: ¶ 3, 18: system identifies specific local audio processing to be offloaded which are deactivated locally on the low power device when the particular processing is offloaded to the companion device) a noise reducer, a pre-processing unit, a post-processing unit, or a combination thereof (Bo: ¶ 35, 39, 46, 56: system operates under voice direction or based on user presets to offload one or multiple particular processing stages, including combinations thereof offloadable together and include stages at various points in a processing pipeline and include pre and post processing tasks necessary for audio processing and noise cancellation; noise cancellation is considered an echo cancellation operation); (Ho: ¶ 32, 37, 52: user input directs or configures operations directing execution of processing stages from distinct hierarchy level of a processing pipeline controlled dynamically to split off onto host device, etc.); (Av: 15, 25, 56, 57, 80, 95: user selects options to direction operation of a plurality of pre-processing and post-processing stages for speech enhancement processing available for processing on companion device). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, further comprising: a battery; and a sensor coupled to the battery and configured to generate the power indicator based on a state associated with the battery (Bo: Abstract; ¶ 31, 32, 36, 49, 63, etc.; Fig 3: such as by determining the battery level of the first, second, etc. battery of the first, second, etc. earpiece by the first, second, etc. processor; such as based on determined charge states thereof; communicating same with the system which reifies battery level state with a threshold to determine adequacy thereof), (Ho: ¶ 31: system determines processing based on battery level of the host and wearable device and to reifies battery level state to determine adequacy thereof with respect to processing needs). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a wireless communication transceiver configured to enable communication between the device and the host device (Bo: ¶ 32, 52, 56, 62, etc.; Fig 3: devices of the system intercommunicate wirelessly such as using transceivers integrated therein); (Ho: ¶ 26, 38, etc.: host and wearable devices intercommunicate wirelessly). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 12, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to establish a communication session with the host device via the wireless communication transceiver; and the communication session is associated with a personal area network including: a peer-to-peer link between the device and the host device; and a wireless fidelity (WiFi) link between the device and the host device via a network node (Bo: ¶ 32, 52, 62, etc.; Fig 3: wireless transceivers operate over bluetooth, wifi, etc.); (Ho: ¶ 26, 38, etc.: host and wearable devices intercommunicate wirelessly over bluetooth, wifi, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, further comprising the microphone configured to receive the audio input and generate the microphone audio data based on the audio input (Bo: ¶ 35, 42-46, 64, etc.; Fig 3, 6: microphones determine audio input such as for receipt of voice user interface commands, noise cancellation processing, etc.); (Ho: Abstract; ¶ 25; Fig 1: microphone receive user input for detecting, operating, etc. with respect to user speech). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 15
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, further comprising: a speaker configured to output audio based on audio output data, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the audio output data and provide the audio output data to the speaker (Bo: ¶ 47, etc.: speakers operable to provide audio output data as directed by one or more processors); (Ho: Abstract; ¶ 4, etc.: speaker operable to provide output to a user as directed by one or more processors). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the device is a wearable electronic device, an earbud, a hearing aid device, a mixed reality or augmented reality glasses device, a headset, a virtual reality headset, a mixed reality headset, or an augmented reality headset (Bo: Abstract: wearable devices comprises ear piece, ear bud, etc.); (Ho: ¶ 1: a wearable electronic device communicates with a hose device in the form of a smartphone). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17
Bo in view of Ho in view of Av teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the host device includes a modem configured to send processed microphone audio data generated based on the one or more audio processing operations performed on the microphone audio data (Bo: ¶ 62: transceivers of the system comprise modems). Examiner takes official notice that modems were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of transmission of data, such as microphone audio data between devices. The claim is thus considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 18
Bo in view of Ho teaches or suggests:
The device of claim 1, wherein the host device is a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a tablet computer device, a voice-controlled speaker system, or a vehicle (Bo: ¶ 66, etc.; devices of the system comprise a phone, tablet, etc. (Ho: ¶ 20: host devices comprises a smartphone or other computing device); (Av: ¶ 19: companion device comprises a smartphone or tablet). The claim is considered obvious over Bo as modified by Ho and Av as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Bo, Ho, and/or Av to the modified device of Bo, Ho and Av; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 19, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights