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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, 15 require a first playback device “integrated into a television,”—claim 1, 15; and/or “integral to a television,”—claim 8; and a second playback d device comprising a housing “not configured for integration into a television.” The specification merely states that “a playback device may be integral to another device or component such as a television, a lighting fixture, or some other device.” The specification does not describe or discuss a television integrated embodiment nor any structural relationship that shows the manner in which a playback device is integral to or integrated into anything other than a playback device. The specification treats of the playback device itself and not any housing thereof particularly with regard to a housing configured for or not configured for TV integration. Further, the specification does not discuss any contrast or patentable distinction of housings with respect to the claimed multichannel calibration system. As such the specification is not considered to convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the claimed subject matter at the filing date of the instant application and claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1, 8, 15 recite a “housing not configured for integration into a television.” The claim does not clarify the meaning of “not configured,” and as such it cannot be ascertained whether “not configured,” refers to an inability to be physically installed into a TV, lack of mounting or electrical connectors for such configuration and thus structurally unsuitable thereto, designed to specifically or latently prevent configuring in this way, or simply not currently installed into a TV. The specification does not discuss this feature and cannot provide insight into the claim deficiencies as the specification merely discusses generic speakers, transducers, amplifiers, microphones, interfaces, etc. and provides no description of TV integration nor of housings, particularly a negative class of housings unable to provide TV integration. Claims 1, 8, 15 additionally recite “perform a calibration procedure corresponding to a group configured to create a multi-channel surround sound audio environment,” which imputes that the calibration process may configure and create but also that the group may be extant prior; Applicant is requested to clarify. With further regard to claims 1, 8, 15 it will be presumed by the Examiner that the absence of playback by the second audio processing algorithm by the second playback device is deliberate and that the claims only require that the second playback device join in synchrony with the first playback device for the playback of the second content portions. Further claims 1, 8 recite “a data interface,” which Examiner will construe as the network interface discussed in the specification. However claim 15 recites “a network interface,” and then “a data interface,” as the specification does not discuss any distinction Examiner is uncertain how to construe and will consider the recitations to both resolve operative portions of the disclosed network interface. Claims 2, 9, 16 recite the group configured to “create the multi-channel surround sound audio environment content,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent. Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the television must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the manner in which the claimed first playback devices is “integral,” to another device or component as described in the specification nor do they show the manner in which the claimed second playback device is housed in a manner “not configured for integration into a television,” which is equally necessary as no housing or containment of the device is described in the specification save that the device “may be integral to another device or component.” Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh: 20150016642 hereinafter Wal further in view of Labosco: 20140037097 hereinafter Lab and further in view of Jarvis: 20140093085.
Regarding claim 1
Wal teaches:
A system comprising: a first playback device integrated with a television (Wal: ¶ 4, 23, 32; Fig 1, 2: system comprises a plurality of speakers such as soundbar, surround and subwoofer speakers integrated with TV 102; the invention may be implemented into a TV tuner, mounted with in concert with a TV, etc. to thereby form an integral arrangement with a TV); at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by at least one processor (Wal: Abstract; ¶ 36; Fig 2, 3: a speaker which automatically calibrates such as under direction of stored instructions retrieved from memory and executed on a processor) such that the system is configured to:
perform a calibration procedure corresponding to a group configured to create a multi-channel surround sound audio environment, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to perform the calibration procedure comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor (Wal: ¶ 3, 4, 32; Fig 1, 2, 7: system operates to calibrate a multichannel speaker system such as that of the figure 1 by proceeding through a calibration procedure such as that of figure 7) such that the system is configured to:
cause the first playback device and a second playback device to play back calibration sounds via at least one first audio transducer and at least one second audio transducer, respectively (Wal: ¶ 69-73; Fig 7: for each of the speakers the system plays and measures a test signal; in Wal the two or more microphones, array thereof, is “integral,” upon the first playback device and the direction and angle of each additional loudspeaker is determined based thereon), wherein the second playback device comprise a housing carrying the at least one second audio transducer, the housing not configured for integration into a television (Wal: such as the recited satellite loudspeakers comprising enclosures visible from the TV/soundbar component and thus “not configured for integration,” therewith);
during playback of the calibration sounds, capture, via at least one microphone, microphone data representing playback of the calibration sounds by the first playback device and the second playback device (Wal: ¶ 5, 47, 69-73; Fig 7: two or more microphones, array thereof, of the system receives test signal played at each/any loudspeaker);
identify first, second, etc. portions of the microphone data corresponding to playback of the calibration sounds by the second, etc. playback device (Wal: ¶ 69-73; Fig 7: distance and angle of each additional speaker calculated based on analysis of the calibration signals emitted therefrom);
determine one or more first parameters of a first audio processing algorithm based on the identified first portions of the microphone data (Wal: ¶ 61, 62, 69-73; Fig 4, 7: such as adjusting a delay and/or gain parameter based on the determined angle, distance, etc. of each speaker with respect to a determined listener position);
determine one or more second parameters of a second audio processing algorithm based on the identified second portions of the microphone data (Wal: ¶ 61, 62, 69-73; Fig 4, 7: such as adjusting a delay and/or gain parameter based on the determined angle, distance, etc. of each speaker with respect to a determined listener position);
form the group, the group including the first playback device and the second playback device (Wal: ¶ 33, 34, etc.: such as by reformatting a multichannel media to reflect the determined speaker layout);
after performance of the calibration procedure, receive, via a data interface, multi- channel audio content associated with video (Wal: ¶ 4, 23, 33, 37: such as from attached physical media such as a DVD; from an Internet A/V device; from a computer coupled to a network; etc.); and
cause the group to play back the multi-channel audio content, wherein, to form the multi-channel surround sound audio environment, the first playback device plays back first portions of the multi-channel audio content according to the first audio processing algorithm and the second playback device plays second portions of the multi-channel audio content in synchrony with the first playback device (Wal: ¶ 61, 62, 69-73; Fig 4, 7: such as by emitting processed signals sent to each loudspeaker comprising delay and gain parameters based on determined positions thereof with respect to a listener and rendered therefrom with respect thereto).
Wal does not explicitly teach the first playback device playing a calibration sound for capture by a microphone in a manner similar to that of the satellite speakers such as for determining parameters of the first playback device; similar to the instant application Wal is not explicit with respect to the integration of the first playback device into a television.
In a related field of endeavor Lab teaches a system and method for calibrating a home theater system including playing and capturing a calibration sound from a first playback device (Lab: ¶ 5: speaker calibration system sends tone through all speakers and subwoofer to capture sounds of particular speakers at particular locations); to thereby identify a first device, frequency portions and parameters thereof (Lab: ¶ 4, 19, etc.: a data signal generated based on series of one or more test tones issued by an audio output device and including equalization information to balance frequencies thereof and speaker setting parameters including gain and crossover frequency); thereby enabling an immersive audio experience by adjusting delay of a plurality of individual speakers for synchronized delivery of media (Lab: ¶ 85, 86, 97, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the sound calibration system of Wal by additionally sending a test tone through, capturing signal from, and determining connection parameters of the first playback device as taught or suggested by Lab for at least the purpose of balancing and correcting every speaker in a group rather than merely the satellites, thereby improving the response of the system and providing a better calibrated thus more immersive multichannel listening experience; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Wal in view of Lab strongly suggests but does not explicitly discuss synchrony nor an embodiment where a playback device and television are integrated, such as in a similar housing.
In a related field of endeavor Ku teaches a system and method for grouping playback devices to deliver media in synchrony (Ja: ¶ 32; Fig 1); such as by management of delay in each/any of the grouped playback devices in connection with video (Ja: ¶ 123-128; Fig 11); and wherein a playback device may be constructed in a manner to be part of a television (Ja: ¶ 50) or constructed in to be borne in a housing not integrated with a television (Ja: Fig 2A, 2B: such as within a discrete speaker embodiment or receiver housing embodiment such as that of the figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to operate a group of speakers such as those of the Wal in view of Lab system for at least the purpose of providing as tight a synchrony with video as possible and method in synchrony with video as taught or suggested by Ja and further obvious to integrate at least one of the Wal in view of Lab speakers into a television as taught or suggested by Ja for at least the purpose of obviating the need for an additional speaker and/or for reclaiming the space, electrical connectivity, etc. occupied by a discrete speaker; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
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 form the group configured to create the multi-channel surround sound audio environment content comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
add a third playback device comprising at least one third audio transducer to the group (Wal: ¶ 32-35; Fig 1: a system which comprises configural presentation modes such that a user may accomplish different layouts with more or less loudspeakers); (Ja; ¶ 62, 82, 155: such as for dynamically adding or removing from a group or from the system), wherein during playback of the multi-channel audio content by the group, the third playback device plays back third portions of the multi-channel audio content according to a third audio processing algorithm in synchrony with the first playback device to create the multi-channel surround sound audio environment with the first playback device and the second playback device (Wal: such as by sending a specific signal to each speaker; said signals specifically processed with respect to its respective speaker); (Ja: ¶ 79, 103, 104each of a plurality of devices, channels, frequency, parameters, etc. thereof, respective thereto, etc. rendered in synchrony with video playback such as of a television integrated first device). The claim is considered obvious over Wal as modified by Lab and Ja as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wal, Lab, and/or Ja to the modified device of Wal, Lab, and Ja; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: identify third portions of the microphone data corresponding to playback of the calibration sounds by the third playback device (Wal: ¶ 10, 30, 47, 71, etc. per speaker capture of tones for adjustment with respect to the position of each loudspeaker); (Lab: ¶ 5, 19: system determines each speakers captured data via test tones played through the speaker and captured by a microphone(s) of the system); and determine one or more third parameters of the third audio processing algorithm based on the identified third portions of the microphone data (Wal: ¶ 47, 60-64: system adjusts delay and gain of signals sent to each/any speaker of the system); (Lab: ¶ 4, etc.: determines playback parameters for all the speakers). The claim is considered obvious over Wal as modified by Lab and Ja as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wal, Lab, and/or Ja to the modified device of Wal, Lab, and Ja; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 2, wherein the housing of the second playback device is a first housing, wherein the third playback device comprises a second housing carrying the at least one third audio transducer and at least one audio amplifier configured to drive the at least one third audio transducer (Wal: Fig 1: such as an additional satellite speaker of the system); (Lab: Fig 1: such as an additional speaker(s) of the system); (Ja: Fig 2A: such as by adding an additional speaker such as similar to that of the figure). The claim is considered obvious over Wal as modified by Lab and Ja as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wal, Lab, and/or Ja to the modified device of Wal, Lab, and Ja; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first playback device comprises the at least one microphone (Wal: Abstract; ¶ 43; Figs 3: microphone(s) included within the first speaker). The claim is considered obvious over Wal as modified by Lab and Ja as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wal, Lab, and/or Ja to the modified device of Wal, Lab, and Ja; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein a mobile device comprises the at least one microphone (Wal: ¶ 4, 23: apparatus includes speaker and mobile device). The claim is considered obvious over Wal as modified by Lab and Ja as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wal, Lab, and/or Ja to the modified device of Wal, Lab, and Ja; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: after the calibration procedure is performed, cause display of a graphical indication that the calibration procedure was successful); (Wal: ¶ 24, 45, 46, 68: system comprises a GUI and maintains a calibration log); (Ja: ¶ 36, 57, 58: such as by display of application user interface). While Wal in view of Lab in view of Ja does not explicitly discuss display of calibration data indictive of successful or unsuccessful calibration procedures Examiner takes official notice that the display of system dynamics such as those recited upon the taught user interfaces was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion such as for maintaining user awareness to system state; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 8, 15—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 9, 16—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 10, 17—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 11, 18—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 12, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20150215723—system maintains table of individual speaker parameters determined by analysis of test tones.
20150131826—determination of speaker parameters from microphone derived test tones.
20140161280—correction of room parameters using test tones derived from plural speakers.
20140161281—correction of room parameters using test tones derived from plural speakers.
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