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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/14/25 has been reviewed. Each of the cited documents have been considered except for document 1 listed under Non-Patent Literature Documents since the listed application is not a co-pending application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1/21/25 are acceptable to the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riemer et al. (WO 2024/039999 A1).
Re claim 1: Riemer et al. teaches a first computing device (figure 1F), comprising:
at least one memory (112b); and
at least one processor (112a) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first computing device to:
determine whether a microphone (115) associated with the first computing device is turned on (see figure 3D along with paragraph [0109], “activation and deactivation of one of the microphones 315” and ”illuminate only when the one or microphones 315 are activated”;
detect audio playback that is output from speakers of a second computing device located within a threshold proximity to the first computing device (paragraph [0183], “one playback device can detect audio played back by another audio playback device” based on a proximity parameter; and
output a trigger to cause one or more of the second computing device to adjust a volume of the audio playback or the first computing device to mute the microphone based on a determination that the microphone associated with the first computing device is turned on (paragraph [0183] by adjusting playback including at a lower volume) satisfying the alternatively claimed language as set forth.
Re claim 10: This claim sets forth similar features as discussed with respect to claim 1 for a second computing device instead of a first computing device which are satisfied by the teaching of Riemer et al. since in this arrangement there are a plurality of playback device, each having the same construction which are used with one another for similar purposes. See paragraph [0183] playing back audio that can be adjusted for each device “vice versa”.
Re claim 17: this claim (although written as a method) sets forth various features similar to those discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10. The method limitations are satisfied by the method operations performed by those portions of the device arrangement of Riemer et al. as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10.
Re claims 5 and 13: See teaching in paragraph [0183] in which a microphone is determined to be on (by the ability to detect audio) and used to provide an alert (indication to provide audio at an adjust playback in the other device)
Re claims 6 and 14: In as broadly as the term “actively recording audio” can be given without better defining the claimed recording, i.e. can be interpreted as having a microphone that records/detects audio being reproduced; is taught by the arrangement taught in paragraph [0183] by the recoding by a microphone that audio is being played back by one device and used to adjust the volume of another device
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed device including in combination the features as set forth in claims 1 and 10 along with the corresponding method of claim 17 wherein the volume is lowered in response that a device is actively receiving audio input at the microphone as set forth in claims 2, 11 and 18 respectively is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed device including in combination the features as set forth in claim 1 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first computing device to determine an identity of the second computing device in response to detecting that the first computing device is actively recording or participating in an audio call or a virtual meeting as set forth in claim 3 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed device including in combination the features as set forth in claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the second computing device to determine an identity of the first computing device in response to detecting that the first computing device is actively recording or participating in an audio call or a virtual meeting as set forth in claim 12 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed device including in combination the features as set forth in claim 1 wherein, wherein the trigger is configured to instruct the second computing device to turn off auto play on the second computing device as set forth in claim 4 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. Similar features to claim 4 are set forth in corresponding method claim 19/17. The claimed device including in combination the features as set forth in claim 1, the combination of features of claim 10, the combination of features of claim 17 that further uses a machine learning model to determine if the microphone is expected to receive/not expected to receive audio as set forth in claims 7, 15, 16 and 20 is not taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 9-10 depend upon those features of claim 7/1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/30/26
