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 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9930470. 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. 11122382. 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. 11197117. 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. 11825289. 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. 19029722. 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 display of status updates comprising user location nor does the specification discuss combining speaker derived user, listening, etc. location with camera derived user, listening, etc. 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, 11, 19 recite the operation of a device to “cause, via a display, display of a status update indicating the position of the listener relative to the first playback device;” such as using a camera, generate localization data and operate transducers upon a first playback device. The only display disclosed by the specification is upon the controller; the first playback device does not include a display. The specification does not discuss a status update bearing listener position information relative to the first playback device; ¶ 90 of the specification describes a status update as comprising active playback devices and changes in the sound field due to a listener position. The specification discusses that the status update is sent to the controller and that the controller only operates to display a user interface; ¶ 90 discloses that a coordinator zone player communicates the status update to a user through the controller. No discussion of how the coordinator zone player causes the display of a status update or displays a status update is countenanced by the specification; nor is any algorithm by which a listener position relative to the first playback device is displayed or indicated disclosed by the specification; thus the specification lacks written description support therefor. Claims 2-10, 12-18, 20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claims 4, 14, 20 additionally require the system operable to generate localization data corresponding to a position of a listener, such as “based on the received image data and the received microphone data.” 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. Claims 5, 15 additionally require that the system direct the localized sound field “at the position of the listener.” The specification discuss generation of a sweet spot and steering a sound field using drivers of a particular playback device but not the steering of audio using two playback devices in concert. Claims 9, 18 additionally require that the first playback device apply the first and second filter through a DSP thereon; the specification consistently discusses application of filtering of audio by each playback device rather than using a DSP of one particular playback device.
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, 11, 19 rejected as being indefinite. The claims recite a first playback device operable to “cause, via a display, display of a status update…” it is unclear if the display is intended as part of the claimed first playback device. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot therefore be reasonably determined and the claims are considered indefinite. Claim 2-10, 12-18, 20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
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, 5, 14
Lam teaches:
At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by at least one processor (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) such that a first playback device is configured to:
determine, based on user generated localization data, one or more audio characteristics to adjust a sound field produced by the first playback device and a second playback device during playback (Lam: Figs 7D: such as by user operation of balance, gain and equalization user interface elements to adjust parameters of one or more grouped playback devices), wherein the first playback device comprises at least one first audio transducer and the second playback device comprises at least one second audio transducer (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 a for effecting playback of audio in concert with the audio parameters thereof);
cause, via a display of a controller device, display of status updates indicating the position of the listener relative 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 each/any of the playback devices);
obtain audio data and generate (i) first playback audio from the obtained audio data and (ii) second playback audio from the obtained audio data (Lam: Figs 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), wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to generate first playback audio from the obtained audio data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: decode the obtained audio data; and cause playback of the first playback audio via the at least one first audio transducer of the first playback device according to the one or more audio characteristics, wherein the second playback device plays back the second playback audio in substantial synchrony with playback of the first playback audio (id.).
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.
In a related field of endeavor Brai teaches a system, method, and 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) such that a first playback device is configured to:
generate, localization data corresponding to a position of a listener relative to the first playback device and second audio 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);
determine, based on the generated localization data, one or more audio characteristics to adjust a sound field produced by the first playback device and a second playback device during playback, wherein the first playback device comprises at least one first audio transducer and the second playback device comprises at least one second audio transducer (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); obtain audio data (Brai: Abstract; ¶ 33, 36, 42: system acquires audio from a plurality of sources for output and optimizes the audio output for a user’s current location); generate (i) first playback audio from the obtained audio data and (ii) second playback audio from the obtained audio data (id.),
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to generate first playback audio from the obtained audio data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
decode the obtained audio data; and cause playback of the first playback audio via the at least one first audio transducer of the first playback device according to the one or more audio characteristics, wherein the second playback device plays back the second playback audio in substantial synchrony with playback of the first playback audio (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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Brai taught determination of a user listening position with respect to a first, second, etc. playback device to triangulate a position of a user and thereby adjust parameters of the Lam system and method to create an audio sweet spot at a determined location of a user for at least the purpose of improving a user listening experience; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Lam in view of Brai does not explicitly teach the system operable to receive, via a camera of the first playback device, image data representing at least a portion of a listening area; and generate localization data therefrom.
Lam in view of Brai suggests a camera useful for analyzing room image data (Brai: ¶ 44) but does not explicitly discuss receiving, localization data via a camera and determining user position, the localization data, etc., based on images derived from the camera and directing audio output based on the image 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 adjusted audio output parameters of one or more speakers to reposition the optimal listing position based on the user’s current position (Free: ¶ 11, 23, 34-37).
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 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 at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 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 first playback device is configured to: cause, via a network interface, playback of the second playback audio via the at least one second audio transducer of the second playback device according to the one or more audio characteristics (Lam: Figs 2A-2C, 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as based on parameters set as shown in the figures for one or more second, third, etc. devices in a group, based on second, third, etc. localization data); (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, 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 claim 3
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first playback device comprises a microphone, 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 first playback device is configured to:
receive, via the microphone of the first playback device, microphone data representing sound within the listening area (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). 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 4
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to generate the localization data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
generate, based on the received image data and the received microphone data, localization data corresponding to a position of a listener relative to the first playback device and the second playback device (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, 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 claim 5
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 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 first playback device is configured to determine the one or more audio characteristics comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
determine audio characteristics configured to substantially direct the sound field produced by at least the first playback device and the second playback device at the position of the listener (Lam: Figs 2A-2C, 3C, 4, 7A-7D: such as based on parameters set as shown in the figures for one or more second, third, etc. devices in a group, based on second, third, etc. localization data); (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, 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 claim 6
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to obtain the audio data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: obtain the audio data via a network interface (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; such as using the network interfaces of one or more playback devices, controllers, etc.); (Brai: ¶ 33, 36, 42: multiple network speakers each comprising a microphone operable to triangulate the location of the user, audio from one of a plurality of sources for output; optimizes the audio output for a user’s current location and deliver optimized audio with respect to a user(s) location and to obtain audio); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37; Fig 1; system operates 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). 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 at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to obtain the audio data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: obtain the audio data via a line-in interface (Lam: Col 7:9-7:16: system processes and distributes analog signals); (Brai: ¶ 26: system operates to receive a line level signal such as from a CD or music player). 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 8
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to determine the one or more audio characteristics comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
determine at least one first filter corresponding to the first playback device based on at least the one or more audio characteristics (Lam: Fig 7D: such as a setting of the balance, volume and eq for a first playback device); (Brai: ¶ 17, 22, 30, 31; 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 and to optimize audio based on the user location); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37; Fig 1; system operates 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); wherein during playback, the at least one first filter modifies the first playback audio to adjust a first portion of the sound field; and
determine at least one second filter corresponding to the second playback device based on at least the one or more audio characteristics, wherein during playback, the at least one second filter modifies the second playback audio to adjust a second portion of the sound field (Lam: Col 2:56-64, 12:14-12:19: Fig 7D, etc.: such as a setting of the balance, volume and eq for a first playback device and 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: ¶ 17, 22, 30, 31; 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 and to optimize audio based on the user location); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37; Fig 1; system operates 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). 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 9
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to generate (i) the first playback audio from the obtained audio data and (ii) the second playback audio from the obtained audio data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
apply the at least one first filter to the audio data via a digital signal processor; and apply the at least one second filter to the audio data via the digital signal processor (Lam: Col 2:56-64, 12:14-12:19: Fig 7D, etc.: such as a setting of the balance, volume and eq for a first playback device by a DSP of the device and 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: ¶ 17, 22, 30, 31, 46; 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 and to optimize audio based on the user location; such as by using DSP of a device or devices of the system to adapt the signal to the user location); (Free: Abstract; ¶ 11, 23, 34-37; Fig 1; system operates 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). 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 10
Lam in view of Brai in view of Free teaches or suggest:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to generate the localization data comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: perform a location scan of the listening area via the camera; and determine the position of a listener relative to the first playback device based on the location scan (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 11, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 11, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 14, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 6, 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 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