DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,042,355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 20 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of claims 1 – 20 of the cited patent.
It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1 - 20 of the cited patent as a general teaching for detecting that a primary device is unavailable, to perform method/system as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the '355' patent and differ only in the method steps. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of '355' patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a copending application. And since the structure is as recited, the method step is obtained and therefore, obvious.
Here is a comparison between claim 17 of the instant application and claim 15 of the cited patent.
Instant Application 19/031,037
Cited Patent 11,042,355
Comparison
17. A method carried out by a system, the method comprising:
15. A method comprising:
Similar
determining that a primary networked microphone device of a networked microphone system is not available to receive voice commands for a media playback system, wherein the media playback system comprises one or more playback devices configured to play back media content;
receiving a voice command via at least one microphone of a networked microphone device, wherein the networked microphone device is configured to receive voice commands for a media playback system, and wherein the media playback system comprises the networked microphone device and a first playback device configured to play back content;
Similar
based on determining that the primary networked microphone device is not available to receive voice commands, designating a fallback device to receive voice commands for the media playback system, wherein the fallback device comprises a first playback device of the one or more playback devices in the media playback system, the first playback device comprising at least one microphone;
determining that the networked microphone device is not configured to play back the content;
in response to determining that the networked microphone device is not configured to play back the content, determining that the first playback device is available to play back the content; causing the first playback device to play back the content;
determining that the first playback device is no longer available to play back the content; and
Similar
receiving, via the at least one microphone of the first playback device, a voice command for the media playback system; and
executing the received voice command.
in response to determining that the first playback device is no longer available to play back the content, reconfigure the networked microphone device to play back the content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (US PAP 2016/0155443).
As per claims 1, 9, 17, Khan et al. teach a system comprising:
at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to (paragraph 37):
determine that a primary networked microphone device of a networked microphone system is not available to receive voice commands for a media playback system, wherein the media playback system comprises one or more playback devices configured to play back media content (“determining that a preferred device for the task is not available; responsive to determining that a preferred device for the task is not available, determining a fallback device for the task; and handing the task off to the fallback device.”; paragraphs 7, 120 – 124);
based on determining that the primary networked microphone device is not available to receive voice commands, designate a fallback device to receive voice commands for the media playback system, wherein the fallback device comprises a first playback device of the one or more playback devices in the media playback system, the first playback device comprising at least one microphone (“determining that a preferred device for the task is not available; responsive to determining that a preferred device for the task is not available, determining a fallback device for the task; and handing the task off to the fallback device.”; paragraphs 7, 120 – 124, 150);
receive, via the at least one microphone of the first playback device, a voice command for the media playback system; and execute the received voice command (“receiving a command phrase from the microphone of the electronic device; recognizing a task in the command phrase; via a timeout, determining that a preferred device for the task is not available; responsive to determining that a preferred device for the task is not available, determining a fallback device for the task; and handing the task off to the fallback device.”; paragraphs 7, 120 – 124, 146 -156).
As per claims 2, 10, 18, Khan et al. further disclose that after designating the first playback device as the fallback device, determine that the first playback device is no longer available to receive voice commands for the media playback system; and based on determining that the first playback device is no longer available to receive voice commands for the media playback system, designate a secondary fallback device to receive voice commands for the media playback system (“a fall back list of devices can be used to determine which device is acting primary. The fall back list can be list of devices, list of device types, or list of device designations. If a device designation of most recently used is in the fallback list, the device with the most recent activity can be chosen.”; paragraphs 120 – 124).
As per claims 3, 11, Khan et al. further disclose the secondary fallback device comprises a second playback device of the one or more playback devices in the media playback system(“a fall back list of devices can be used to determine which device is acting primary. The fall back list can be list of devices, list of device types, or list of device designations. If a device designation of most recently used is in the fallback list, the device with the most recent activity can be chosen.”; paragraphs 120 – 124).
As per claims 4, 12, Khan et al. further disclose the secondary fallback device comprises a computing device configured to control the one or more playback devices in the media playback system (paragraphs 120 – 124, 336, 337).
As per claims 5, 13, 19, Khan et al. further disclose the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the primary networked microphone device of the networked microphone system is not available to receive voice commands for the media playback system comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the primary networked microphone device of the networked microphone system is online but not available to receive voice commands (“if the preferred device is not available, a device that nevertheless has the capability to perform the task can still be selected within the topology of interconnected devices. In this way, the user can still accomplish the task, even if the preferred device is not available for whatever reason.”; paragraphs 108, 120 – 124, 132, 357).
As per claims 6, 14, 20, Khan et al. further disclose based on determining that the primary networked microphone device is not available to receive voice commands, cause a computing device configured to control the media playback system to display, via a user interface of the computing device, an indication that the primary networked microphone device is unavailable (“determining that a preferred device for the task is not available …one or more output devices 1150, such as a speaker 1152 and a display 1154. Other possible output devices (not shown) can include piezoelectric or other haptic output devices. Some devices can serve more than one input/output function. For example, touchscreen 1132 and display 1154 can be combined in a single input/output device”; paragraphs 120 – 124; 353 – 357).
As per claims 7, 15, Khan et al. further disclose the primary networked microphone device of the networked microphone system corresponds to a primary media playback device of the media playback system (paragraphs 7, 120 – 124).
As per claims 8, 16, Khan et al. further disclose the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the primary networked microphone device of the networked microphone system is not available to receive voice commands for the media playback system comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the primary networked microphone device (i) in a do not interrupt state, (ii) in a power save mode, (iii) unreachable via a network configured to support communications between the media playback system and the networked microphone device, (iv) unplugged, or (v) powered off ("A low-power connected standby state can be supported in which the device is listening for the wake phrase, thereby conserving power."; paragraphs 28 -34, 59 - 61, 120 – 124).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lewis et al. teach continuation of playback of media content by different output devices. Baalbergen et al. teach METHODS FOR HANDLING CONTENT PLAYBACK. Scherzer teaches METHODS FOR MANAGING AUDIO CONTENT. Chen et al. teach MULTIPLE MICROPHONE SWITCHING AND CONFIGURATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights