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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0008124).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-7, Gong teaches an audio device connected to an operation time optimization system, wherein the system comprises at least two connected audio devices, comprising a primary audio device and at least one secondary audio device, and the audio device comprises:
one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors (paragraphs 0005, 0006) are configured to:
measure a power condition of the audio device and send power condition information to the primary audio device (fig.1-3; paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0079-0082);
listen for a reconfiguration message from the primary audio device (paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0079-0082);
receive, when the audio device is a primary audio device, the power condition information sent by each of the at least two audio devices, determine whether to replace the primary audio device with another secondary audio device, and send, in response to determining to replace the primary audio device with another secondary audio device, the reconfiguration message and perform a reconfiguration operation (paragraphs 0054-0061, 0089-0097, 0140); and
perform, when the audio device is a secondary audio device, the reconfiguration operation after the reconfiguration message sent from the primary audio device is received (paragraphs 0054-0061, 0089-0105).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, Gong teaches wherein the power condition comprises an estimated remaining playback time (paragraphs 0033, 0048-0055, 0081-0088) Note; in paragraph 0053, Gong teaches that “Applications” referred to herein may include at least one of: game applications, music playback applications, video playback applications, instant messaging (IM) applications, social applications, payment applications, or the like, which is not limited herein. For an earphone, different applications lead to different power consumption rates of the earphone. For example, in terms of making a phone call and listening to music with the earphone, power consumption rates are different. It clearly means that if the remaining power is less then the music/video playback time will be less. In other word, the power condition indicates an estimate of remaining power consumption which is used to determine playback time by using the power consumption rate for the particular application playback.).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Gong teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine, when the audio device is a primary audio device, that the reconfiguration operation comprises replacing the primary audio device with the another secondary audio device from the at least one secondary audio device based on the primary audio device being about to run out of power (paragraphs 0061, 0069, 0070, 0096-0097).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Gong teaches wherein the one or a plurality of processors are configured to determine, when the audio device is a primary audio device, that the reconfiguration operation comprises replacing the primary audio device with the another secondary audio device having a longest remaining playback time among the at least two audio devices (paragraphs 0061, 0069, 0070, 0096-0097).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Gong teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine, when the audio device is a primary audio device, that the reconfiguration operation comprises determining each of the at least two audio devices to be a primary audio device in turn based on balancing power conditions between the at least two audio devices (paragraphs 0061, 0069, 0070, 0096-0097)
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Gong teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform, when the audio device is a secondary audio device, the reconfiguration operation to replace the primary audio device after the reconfiguration message from the primary audio device is received (fig.1-3; paragraphs 0061, 0069, 0070, 0096-0097).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Gong teaches wherein the reconfiguration operation comprises changing the another secondary audio device to a primary audio device using at least one of: a smooth transition, a volume change, or a spectrum change (paragraphs 0044, 0045, 0053, 0069, 0070, 0080, 0088).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Gong teaches wherein when the audio device is a secondary audio device, the power condition information is sent to the primary audio device through an existing link [i.e., connection channel and protocol] (paragraphs 0006, 0023, 0041, 0042, 0045, 0062-0070, 0096-0102).
Regarding claim 10, Gong teaches wherein the protocol comprises at least one of : Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC, Sparklink, HTTP, UPnP, Zigbee, Matter, MQTT, COAP, AMQP, or WebSocket (paragraph 0041).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Gong teaches wherein the secondary audio device is configured to perform the reconfiguration operation in response to receiving the reconfiguration message from the primary audio device (fig.1-3; paragraphs 0061, 0069, 0070, 0096-0097).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Gong teaches a method for optimizing operation time of a system having at least two audio devices connected (fig.1-3; paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0079-0082).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0008124).
Regarding claim 9, Gong does not specifically teach wherein the power condition information is sent as metadata to the primary audio device. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the power condition information is sent as metadata to the primary audio device is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the feature of wherein the power condition information is sent as metadata to the primary audio device in Gong’s invention in order to provide proper information as metadata without making any inconvenience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md S. Elahee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on (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 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights