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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
The double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9084058. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12501229. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12593192. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of copending Application No. 19028592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19029937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e); 35 U.S.C. 129; or 35 U.S.C. 121; as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 62672020; 16119642; 16871594; 17930817; etc. fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As detailed in the 35 USC 112, first paragraph rejections infra the specification does not discuss combining two speaker derived user locations with camera derived listening location data from a network device. As such any claim for priority must resolve the filing date of the instant application 1/17/2025.
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.
Claims 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 recite “receiving, through a camera, third localization data.” The specification as filed does not discuss a camera on a separate network device similarly operable to receive first and second localization data such as based on receipt of output sound fields nor a distinct device bearing a camera and operable alongside the playback devices and further operable to receive sound fields. The specification allows that the network device comprises a camera or infrared sensor and that localization components exist only upon the playback devices of the system. Similarly written description with regard to “determining, based on the first localization data, the second localization data, and the third localization data, a listening location,” is spare at best. The specification does not discuss the manner in which localization of a user by combining two speaker derived user location datum with camera derived listening location data from a network device. As such claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected as the specification is considered to lack written description for the claimed embodiment. 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, 8, 15 recite that the first, second localization datum correspond to the first, second playback device; and the claims impute that the localization data corresponds to the audio output of the first, second playback device and that the sound field is received by the network device, conducted via circuitry thereof. As such reasonable interpretations of the claims exist outside the bounds of the specification. In the context of the claims the network device is required to receive the localization data, however the specification as filed discusses the network device comprising a camera or infrared sensor and as such the imputed presence of a microphone upon the network device such as to receive localization data renders the claim indefinite as the dependent claims conflate various functionality upon the network device whereas the specification only discusses and shows localization component comprising sensors in the context of the playback devices of the system. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claim 2, 9, 16 recite the claim 1 functionality on a mobile device, in a manner lacking clear disclosure in the specification and presumed to be the controller device which does not comprise the localization components. Claims 4, 11, 18 additionally recite the localization data received by an infrared sensor or microphone of the network device,” the localization component, sensors, etc., only exist on the playback devices of the system. Appropriate correction is required
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 Lambourne: 7571014 hereinafter Lam in view of Braithwaite: 20100303046 hereinafter Bra further in view of Freeman: 20080130923 hereinafter Free.
Regarding claim 1
Lam teaches:
A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a network device to perform operations (Lam: Abstract; Col 5:35-5:53, 6:37-7:16, 7:4-7:43, 8:50-8:61etc.; Figs 2A-C, 7A-D: a system for ad hoc grouping and ungrouping of a network, constellation, etc. of playback devices under direction of a controller for synchronous delivery of audio thereby) comprising:
causing, via a first set of transducers of a first playback device, output of a first sound field (Lam: Col 1:35-1:40; Fig 1, 2A-C: each/any of the audio players comprises speakers each necessarily comprising at least one audio transducer such as for effecting playback of audio in concert with the audio parameters thereof);
receiving first localization data corresponding to the first playback device (Lam: Figs 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as by adjusting the display of altered parameters including changes of ad hoc groupings of players, such as by tracking user finger position on a user interface with respect to a first playback device);
causing, via a second set of transducers of a second playback device, output of a second sound field (Lam: Col 1:35-1:40; Fig 1, 2A-C: each/any of the audio players comprises speakers each necessarily comprising at least one audio transducer such as effecting playback of audio in concert with the audio parameters thereof);
receiving second localization data corresponding to the second playback device (Lam: Figs 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as by adjusting the display of altered parameters including changes of ad hoc groupings of players, such as by tracking user finger position on a user interface with respect to a second playback device); obtaining audio data; generating, based on the obtained audio data and the determined listening location, first playback audio and second playback audio (Lam: Figs 2A-2C, 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as by user instantiation of particular media items upon the user interface and delivery thereof in keeping with the directed audio parameters); and causing, via a network interface (Lam: Figs 2A-2C such as those of the playback devices, controller, etc.), playback of the first playback audio via the first set of transducers of the first playback device and playback of the second playback audio via the second set of transducers of the second playback device (Lam: Figs 2A-2C, 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as by user instantiation of particular media items upon the user interface and delivery thereof in keeping with the directed audio parameters).
Lam teaches adjustment of a soundfield based on user interface instructions upon a user interface therefor but not based on a user position in a listening area, Lam does not explicitly teach the system, a first device therein, etc. operable to receive, via a camera of the first playback device, image data representing at least a portion of a listening area; generate, based on the received image data, localization data corresponding to a position of a listener relative to the first playback device; determine, to adjust the soundfield output by each/any of the devices based on camera derived user location data.
Brai teaches:
A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a network device to perform operations (Brai: ¶ 9, 29, 32, 46; Claim 1, 4, etc.; Fig 1, 2, 7: system comprising a controller and plurality of playback devices operative of processing to control operations of a network of playback devices) comprising:
causing, via a first set of transducers of a first playback device, output of a first sound field (Brai: ¶ 22, 30; Fig 2, 3, etc.: each/any speaker of the system operates to convert an input audio signal into sound for output using one or more transducers);
receiving first localization data corresponding to the first playback device (Brai: ¶ 17, 31; Fig 2, 3, etc.: each/any speaker therein additionally comprises a sensor in the form of a speaker/microphone driver and/or a dedicated microphone therein and operable to locate a user in a room and to optimize audio based on the user location);
causing, via a second set of transducers of a second playback device, output of a second sound field (Brai: ¶ 22, 30; Fig 2, 3, etc.: each/any speaker of the system operates to convert an input audio signal into sound for output using one or more transducers);
receiving second localization data corresponding to the second playback device (Brai: ¶ 17, 31; Fig 2, 3, etc.: each/any speaker therein additionally comprises a sensor in the form of a speaker/microphone driver and/or a dedicated microphone therein and operable to locate a user in a room and to optimize audio based on the user location);
determining, based on the first localization data, and the second localization data, a listening location (Brai: ¶ 33, 36, 42: multiple network speakers each comprising a microphone operable to triangulate the location of the user, deliver optimized audio with respect to a user(s) location);
obtaining audio data (Brai: Abstract; ¶ 33, 36, 42: system acquires audio from one of a plurality of sources for output and optimizes the audio output for a user’s current location);
generating, based on the obtained audio data and the determined listening location, first playback audio and second playback audio (id.); and
causing, via a network interface, playback of the first playback audio via the first set of transducers of the first playback device and playback of the second playback audio via the second set of transducers of the second playback device (Brai: Abstract; ¶ 9, 30, 33, 36, 42: first, second, etc. networked speakers receive audio, optimized locally or elsewhere on the network for output based on the user location).
Lam in view of Brai suggests a camera useful for analyzing room image data (Brai: ¶ 44) but does not explicitly discuss receiving, via a camera, third localization data; and determining, a listening location based on the first localization data, the second localization data of Lam in view of Brai in concert with camera based localization data.
In a related field of endeavor Free teaches a system and method for dynamic control of audio playback based on listener position (Free: Abstract; Fig 1) comprising a camera (Free: ¶ 4, 11; Fig 1: imager 108) operable for determining localization data of a user such as by determining a current position of a user with respect to an optimal listening location (Free: ¶ 11, 34-37) and further operable to output audio in concert with adjusted audio output parameters of one or more speakers to reposition the optimal listing position based on the user’s current position (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37; Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the microphone derived, speaker optimized, sweet spot of Lam in view of Brai to include adjustment of audio using camera based, user sensing, sweet spot adjustment as taught or suggested by Free for at least the purpose of dynamically adjusting parameters of audio output by each any speakers of the system in response to user motion; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the network device comprises a mobile computing device (Lam: Figs 2B, 2C: the controller comprises a portable computing device); (Brai: ¶ 26, 27, 43: controllers include PDA, cell phone, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the network device comprises the first playback device (Lam: Col 2:56-64, 12:14-12:19: such as by transmission of media signals to particular players among a group of players by a player of the network, such as a group head or coordinator); (Brai: ¶ 44: network speaker operates to control and distribute playback data). Examiner takes official notice that the utility of a coordinator speaker to operate and optimize output of additional speakers in a group was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of optimizing output of a group of speakers. The claim is thus considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the first localization data and the second localization data are based on signals received by at least one of an infrared sensor or a microphone of the network device (Brai: ¶ 17, 31; Fig 2, 3, etc.: such as the receipt of sound by microphones, such as integrated into the networked playback devices). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein determining the listening location comprises performing a localization algorithm based on at least the first localization data and the second localization data (Lam: Fig 7: such as based on user directions entered explicitly based on user positions on the interface and with respect to the first and second playback device); (Brai: ¶ 33, 36, 42: such as triangulating the location of the user, deliver optimized audio with respect to a user(s) location). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein generating the first playback audio and the second playback audio comprises modifying at least one of an equalization parameter, a volume level, or an audio signal phase of the obtained audio data based on the determined listening location (Lam: Fig 7D: such as by operating the user interface controls with respect to user positions on the interface to direct playback parameters); (Brai: ¶ 33, 36, 42: multiple network speakers each comprising a microphone operable to triangulate the location of the user, deliver optimized audio with respect to a user(s) location); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37, etc.; Fig 1, etc.: system performs dynamic adjustment of volume, eq, etc. based on sensed location parameters of the user). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, subsequent to determining the listening location, updated first localization data and updated second localization data; determining, based on the updated first localization data and the updated second localization data, an updated listening location; and generating, based on the obtained audio data and the updated listening location, updated first playback audio and updated second playback audio (Lam: Fig 7D: such as by subsequent or continued user operation of the user interface controls with respect to user positions on the interface to direct playback parameters); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37, etc.; Fig 1, etc.: system performs dynamic adjustment of volume, eq, etc. based on sensed location parameters of the user, such as when a user moves). The claim is considered obvious over Lam as modified by Brai, and Free as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Lam, and/or Free to the modified device of Lam, Brai, and Free; 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 claims 13, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is 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