DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2014/0003616) herein Johnson.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses an information processing apparatus (information processing apparatus, [Abstract]) comprising: a controller (data processor 8, [0026], Fig. 4); and an audio system (audio system 1, Figs. 1-4, [0022]- [0026]), wherein the controller is configured to, when connection between the audio system and a sound source is detected, measure an output level of a test signal output to the sound source (data processor 8 is configured to, when connection between audio system 1 and a sound source is detected, measure an output level of a test signal output to the sound source, [0005], [0043]-[0045], [0047], [0057], [0058], [0075], [0077]), and determine an output gain of a voice signal output from the audio system to the sound source based on the output level (output amplification for audio output signal (interpreted to meet voice signal) is based on the output level of the test signal determining which mode of operation to execute, [0030], [0033]-[0034], [0040], [0043]-[0045], [0047]-[0050], [0057], [0058], Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses wherein the controller determines the output gain based on an impedance of the sound source corresponding to the output level, a rated power consumption of the sound source, and an internal resistance of the audio system (output gain/levels determined based on an impedance of the sound source, a power consumption of the sound source and an internal resistance of the audio system 1, [0034], [0054]-[0070], Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses wherein the test signal has a frequency component having a frequency higher than an audible band (test signal is inaudible with a frequency above hearing frequency, [0003], [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses a control method of an information processing apparatus including a controller and an audio system (information processing apparatus with controller 8 and audio system 1 control method, [Abstract]), the control method comprising: causing the controller to execute (data processor 8, [0026], Fig. 4), when connection between the audio system and a sound source is detected, a step of measuring an output level of a test signal output to the sound source (data processor 8 is configured to, when connection between audio system 1 and a sound source is detected, measure an output level of a test signal output to the sound source, [0005], [0043]-[0045], [0047], [0057], [0058], [0075], [0077]); and a step of determining an output gain of a voice signal output from the audio system to the sound source based on the output level (output amplification for audio output signal (interpreted to meet voice signal) is based on the output level of the test signal determining which mode of operation to execute, [0030], [0033]-[0034], [0040], [0043]-[0045], [0047]-[0050], [0057], [0058], Figs. 5-7).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2014/0003616) herein Johnson.
Regarding claim 3, while Johnson does not specifically teach wherein the controller determines a maximum voltage of the voice signal based on the impedance of the sound source, a maximum power consumption of the sound source and the internal resistance, Johnson does teach determining a voltage of the voice signal based on the impedance of the sound source, a power consumption of the sound source and the internal resistance (voltage for the output audio voice signal is determined based on an impedance of the sound source, a power consumption of the sound source and an internal resistance of the audio system 1, [0034], [0054]-[0070], Figs. 5-7), and it would have been obvious to determine a maximum voltage based on a maximum power consumption and the above factors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voltage determination of Johnson to determine a maximum voltage of the voice signal based on the impedance of the sound source, a maximum power consumption of the sound source and the internal resistance in order to ensure a safety threshold is not exceeded while maximizing the amplification of the voice signal. The Examiner takes Official Notice.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2014/0003616) herein Johnson in view of Jones (US 2001/0053228).
Regarding claim 5, while Johnson does not specifically teach further comprising: a rectifier element configured to rectify the test signal and output a rectified signal; and a low pass filter configured to extract a low pass signal from the rectified signal, wherein the controller measures an output level of the low pass signal, Johnson does teach the use of a band pass filter (use of band path filter, Johnson: [0080]) and it is well known in the art to utilize a rectifier element configured to rectify the test signal and output a rectified signal; and a low pass filter configured to extract a low pass signal from the rectified signal, wherein the controller measures an output level of the low pass signal as demonstrated by Jones (low-pass signal is extracted after the test signal is rectified (square wave gets rectified), wherein the controller measures an output level of the low pass signal to determine what voltage is needed to power the device, Jones: [0096]-[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Johnson to include a rectifier element configured to rectify the test signal and output a rectified signal; and a low pass filter configured to extract a low pass signal from the rectified signal, wherein the controller measures an output level of the low pass signal, Johnson does teach the use of a band pass filter as suggested by Jones in order to reduce distortion in the audio path (Jones: [0099]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 PM.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. 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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights