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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-10, 18-19 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
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) 1-2, 4-6, 10, 11-12, 14-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson et al. (US 9,756,446 B2) and Chaikin et al. (US 9,560,460 B2).
Claim 1, Johnson et al. disclose of a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: perform a calibration for a group of playback devices, the calibration configured to provide a particular audio experience regardless of respective positions of the playback devices within a playback environment, the group comprising a first playback device and a second playback device (fig.2-3 (4, 14); col.6 line 45-60), wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to perform the calibration for the group of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: cause the group of playback devices to play back calibration audio (col.6 line 45-60);while the playback devices are playing back audio, capture microphone data via at least one microphone representing playback of the calibration audio (fig.3 (18); ;capture, via at least one camera, image data representing positions of a user during the calibration (col.6 line 45-67) ; and detect that one or more conditions are present in at least one of (i) the captured microphone data and (ii) the captured image data (col.6 line 45-67).
But, the prior art never specify of the condition being related to an error condition, but it shall be noted Chaikin et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a certain system being configured to detect error condition being present in capture microphone data (fig.7 (716); col.17 line 10-15). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such specific aspect regarding detecting certain system being configured to detect error condition being present in capture microphone data so as to automatically reconfigure the microphone accordingly to ensure proper speaker calibration.
The combined teaching of Johnson et al. and Chaikin et al. as a whole, further mentioned that based on the detection of the one or more error conditions, output a prompt and later to retry the calibration for the group of playback devices (Cha-col.17 line 5-22).
Although, the prior art never specify of output the prompt based on the detection of the error condition, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art accordingly associated with the error condition by specifying such prompt based on the detection of the error condition for achieving the predictable result as to recalibrate the speakers accordingly.
2. (New) The system of claim 1, but the prior art lacked of the specific as wherein the first playback device is integral to a television, and wherein the first playback device comprises the at least one camera.
However, the examiner takes official notice having such a playback device being integral to a television, and wherein the first playback device comprises the at least one camera is well known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted playback device being integral to a television, and wherein the first playback device comprises the at least one camera so as to reconfigure the playback device based on detection.
4. (New) The system of claim 2, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to output the prompt to retry the calibration for the group of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: output a prompt as mentioned, although, the art never specify as the system being configured to graphical prompt to retry the calibration for the group of playback devices via a display.
But, the prior art as in Chakin et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding a system being configured to graphical prompt associated with the playback devices via a display (fig.7 (706); col.17 line 1-6). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a system being configured to graphical prompt associated with the playback devices via a display so as to provide the user visual detection of the condition detected.
5. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein a user device comprises the at least one microphone and the at least one camera, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to capture the image data representing positions of the user during the calibration comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: capture, via the at least one camera, image data representing positions of the user device during the calibration (John-fig.3 (19); col.7 line 8-35).
6. (New) The system of claim 5, wherein the user device comprises a display (col.3 line 20-27; fig.1), and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to output the prompt to retry the calibration for the group of playback devices comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: output a prompt as mentioned,
Although, lacked is concerning the system to output a graphical prompt to retry the calibration for the group of playback devices via the display.
But, the prior art as in Chakin et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding a system being configured to graphical prompt associated with the playback devices via a display (fig.7 (706); col.17 line 1-6). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a system being configured to graphical prompt associated with the playback devices via a display so as to provide the user visual detection of the condition detected.
10. (New) The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more modules, the one or more modules comprising the at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium (col.7 line 25-50 & col.9line 55-67).
Similarly, the claim(s) 11-12, 14-16 which ins substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Similarly, the claim(s) 20 which ins substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 1 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson et al. (US 9,756,446 B2) and Chaikin et al. (US 9,560,460 B2) and Walsh et al. (US 9,426,598 B2).
3. (New) The system of claim 2, but none of the cited reference mention as wherein the first playback device comprises the at least one microphone.
But, Walsh et al. disclose of such concept related to a playback device comprises the at least one microphone (fig.1 (110); col.7 line 37-42). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such playback device as comprises the at least one microphone so as to implement the spatial calibration accordingly.
Similarly, the claim(s) 13 which ins substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson et al. (US 9,756,446 B2) and Chaikin et al. (US 9,560,460 B2) and Strait et al. (US 8,315,412 B2).
7. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to detect that the one or more error conditions are present comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: detect condition as mentioned.
But, the art never specify of the error condition as being related to that a background noise level representing in the microphone data exceeds a threshold for the calibration.
But Strait disclose of the similar concept wherein a error condition as being related to that a background noise level representing in the microphone data exceeds a threshold (col.1 line 50-67; col.4 line 25-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to the a error condition as being related to that a background noise level representing in the microphone data exceeds a threshold so as to allow the system to correctly function based on accurate speech input.
Similarly, the claim(s) 17 which ins substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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