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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 14 recite the limitation "…at a volume higher that the reduces the volume setting
…" both in line 3-4. The meaning is unclear and it seems Applicant intends to mean “"…at a volume higher than the reduced volume setting …”. Applicant should amend it for clarity.
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.
(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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Rand (US 20160036962 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rand teaches:
authenticating a smart radio with an administrative platform that is separate from the smart radio, wherein the smart radio includes a speaker, a wireless transceiver, a streaming audio application, and a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application (a smart phone with a paired headset can be a smart radio, the headset comprises at least one speaker, see [0281]: “…the local network would enable transmission of data between users' smart phones…”, also see Fig. 9e; user device, i.e. a smart radio, communicates to a wireless access point via Wi-FI, therefore includes a wireless transceiver, see [0139]: “ A POE switch would control communication among various wireless access points that would serve the user devices via Wi-Fi.”, also see Fig. 9b; media application like iTunes etc. is a streaming application, at least the host for media streaming service can be part of an administrative platform and is separate from the smart radio; identification verification is authenticating, e.g. user signing onto his/her iTunes account on a smart phone is authenticating a smart radio with an administrative platform; settings for amplification level adjustment is a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application, see [0124]: “FIG. 7a depicts settings that enable the user to manually adjust amplification levels for commonly used media applications such as iTunes (7020), Spotify (7021), and YouTube (7022)… while studying or working and listening to music, the user may wish to watch an instructional video and have the voice of the speaker automatically amplified to a level where it is audible over top of the music, without needing to manually adjust volume levels. Settings for this could be provided as illustrated in element (7026). ”, also see Fig. 1a);
operating a transceiver of the smart radio with two-way communications with a plurality of other smart radio devices that are each authenticated with the administrative platform (smart phones, i.e. smart radios, can communicate with each other wirelessly with two-way communications; each has its own iTunes account and therefore each is authenticated with the administrative platform; the two-way communications on smart phones is inherently wireless via a transceiver, see [0121]: “Users will be able to add voice commands for common functions such as connecting friends to the Connect screen, initiating and responding to voice messages and 2-way communication”, also see Fig. 5a);
receiving, by the smart radio, an audio message via the two-way communications associated with a user of the smart radio (voice message is an audio message via two-way communications associated with a user of the smart phone, i.e. smart radio, see [0009]:” Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications”);
in response to said receiving of the audio message, automatically reducing the volume setting of the streaming audio application while the audio message plays simultaneously through the speaker of the smart radio (the volume of the music audio from the streaming audio application is automatically reduced upon receiving the audio message then playing the audio message inherently through the smart radio’s speaker, see [0009]: ”Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications”, see [0017]: “…having audio ducked automatically”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1, 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moyal teaches the limitation except where underlined:
authenticating a smart radio with an administrative platform that is separate from the smart radio, wherein the smart radio includes a speaker, a wireless transceiver, a streaming audio application, and a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application (the client computing device 102 and headset 118 in Fig. 1 can be a smart radio, wherein the client computing device 102 can be a smart phone; server 112 can be part of an administrative platform and is separate from the smart radio; the headset comprises at least a speaker, see “FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 of internal and external components of the client computing device 102…The data processing system 402, 404 may be representative of a smart phone”, col.14, ln.17-18, col. 14, ln. 29-30, also see Fig. 1 and 4; the smart phone comprises a wireless interface, i.e. a wireless transceiver, see “Each set of internal components 402 a,b,c also includes network adapters or interfaces 436 such as a TCP/IP adapter cards, wireless Wi-Fi interface cards, or 3G or 4G wireless interface cards or other wired or wireless communication links.” col. 15, ln. 10-14; the server can be in a cloud, identity verification for cloud consumers such as a client computing device, i.e. a smart radio, is authenticating, see “The server 112 may also be located in a cloud computing deployment model, such as a private cloud…”, col. 7, ln. 61-63, also see “Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks… User portal 83 provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators”, col. 17, ln. 59-63);
identifying a safety event associated with a user of the smart radio (The problem/accident is an identified safety event, associated with an employee within the boundary range equipped with his/her headset, i.e. a user of the smart radio, see “ The embodiment may include identifying a severity of the problem. The embodiment may include identifying a user within a boundary range of the problem”, col. 1, ln. 45-48; also see “.. the selective sound allowance program 110A, 110B, 110C may dynamically alter (e.g., increase, decrease) a loudness level of the received sound so that the identified employees within the boundary range can hear the received sound through their noise cancellation headsets, be alerted to the problem/accident…”, col.13, ln. 38-44);
in response to said identification of the safety event, transmitting a remote signal from the administrative platform toward the smart radio, the remote signal configured to cause the smart radio to reduce the volume setting of the streaming audio application (the selective sound allowance program 110B is on a remote server 112, server 112 can be part of the administrative platform, therefore the instructions and message it sends out to identified employees’ headsets is a remote signal from the administrative platform toward the smart radio, see “…the selective sound allowance program 110A, 110B, 110C may provide a configured action item (i.e., remediation instructions), as well as a message, to identified employees within the boundary range for the problem/accident in response to the received sound. The message may include a warning, an alert, or recommended safety actions in response to the problem/accident. Configured action items and messages may be in the form of audio messages transmitted through the noise cancellation headsets (e.g., headset IoT device 118) of identified employees within the boundary range for the problem/accident. Configured action items and messages may also be in the form of text messages transmitted to machines (e.g., machine IoT device 120) of the IWE” col. 13, ln 64-67, col. 14, ln. 1-10).
Moyal does not teach “…a streaming audio application, and a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application”, and “…reduce the volume setting of the streaming audio application”.
Rand teaches “……a streaming audio application, and a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application” (settings for amplification level adjustment is a volume setting associated with the streaming audio application, see [0124]: “FIG. 7a depicts settings that enable the user to manually adjust amplification levels for commonly used media applications such as iTunes (7020), Spotify (7021), and YouTube (7022)… while studying or working and listening to music, the user may wish to watch an instructional video and have the voice of the speaker automatically amplified to a level where it is audible over top of the music, without needing to manually adjust volume levels. Settings for this could be provided as illustrated in element (7026). ”, also see Fig. 1a),
Rand also teaches it is well known in the art that reducing the volume setting of the streaming audio application can be triggered by an external event, e.g. receiving a remote message, i.e. a remote signal (Upon receiving a message, music audio volume will be ducked, i.e. reduced, see [0009]: ”Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the streaming audio application, and volume control scheme as taught by Rand in the method as taught by Moyal. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for “advanced audio management capabilities that allow users to collaborate without interrupting audio from other applications” (Rand: [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal also teaches the limitation except where underlined “receiving, by the smart radio, an audio message via the two-way communications associated with the user of the smart radio” (headset can be part of the smart audio, an audio message transmitted to employee’s headsets is an audio message associated with the user of the smart radio, see: “Configured action items and messages may be in the form of audio messages transmitted through the noise cancellation headsets (e.g., headset IoT device 118) of identified employees”, col.14, ln. 4-7)
Rand also teaches:
operating the wireless transceiver of the smart radio with two-way communications with a plurality of other smart radio devices that are each authenticated with the administrative platform (smart phones, i.e. smart radios, can communicate with each other wirelessly with two-way communications; the two-way communications on smart phones is inherently wireless via a transceiver, see [0121]: “Users will be able to add voice commands for common functions such as connecting friends to the Connect screen, initiating and responding to voice messages and 2-way communication”, also see Fig. 5a, the smart phones can be connected to an application server, which can be part of the administrative platform, therefore each can be identity verified, i.e. authenticated with the administrative platform, see Fig. 9b)
The underlined limitation wherein “receiving, by the smart radio, an audio message via the two-way communications associated with the user of the smart radio” is also taught by Rand as set forth above.
in response to said receiving of the audio message, automatically reducing the volume setting of the streaming audio application while the audio message plays simultaneously through the speaker of the smart radio (the volume of the music audio from the streaming audio application is automatically reduced upon receiving the audio message then playing the audio message inherently through the smart radio’s speaker, see [0009]: ”Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications”, see [0017]: “…having audio ducked automatically”).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed system comprises substantially the same operations conducted by the method in claim 1, except where underlined “the administrative platform communicatively coupled to the smart radio via the wireless transceiver and configured to identify a safety event associated with a user…”
Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal further teaches the above underlined limitation in claim 15 (the selective sound allowance program 110B is on a remote server 112, as part of the administrative platform; 110B determines, i.e. identifies a problem/accident, i.e. a safety event associated with a user; since a smart phone can be part of the smart radio, communication between the smart phone and the administrative platform is inherently wireless via a transceiver, see: “the selective sound allowance program … 110B … may identify all employees located within the identified boundary range for the problem/accident. Employees within the boundary range may be tracked and consequently identified via their issued employee badges or noise cancellation headsets”, col. 13, ln. 20-25, also see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 15’s 103 rejection. Since the claimed system and Computer Readable-Medium component, i.e. instructions, comprise the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 7, claim 20 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand for the reasons mentioned in claim 7’s 103 rejection.
Claims 2-3, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1) further in view of Kalish et al. (US 20170063966 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal in view of Rand does not specifically teach the remote signal is configured to be processed by an operating system employing root access to the smart radio and wherein the operating system reduces the volume setting.
Kalish teaches root level access via an operating system provides a means to access computing device’s resources ( root level of an operating system is a privilege, and is a way to access computing device’s resources including controlling device’s volume setting via the operating system; since the remote signal eventually leads to volume setting changes involved in the operating system, the remote signal is processed by the operating system, see [0031]: “Privileged subsystem 142 is a subsystem created by code adapted instruct a processor in the computing device to create the subsystem in the operating system with the subsystem having root level access to at least some of the computing system resources via the operating system”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted operating system’s root level access as taught by Kalish in the volume reduction method as taught by Moyal in view of Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to create and provide subsystems for specialized tasks” (Kalish: [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal in view of Rand does not teach the remote signal is configured to be processed by a local administrator program on the smart radio that includes administrative privileges that enable reducing the volume setting.
Kalish teaches root level access of a privileged subsystem, i.e. a program running on a processor local to the computing device, which can access computing device’s resources. The program running on the processor local to the computing device of Kalish can be interpreted as the claimed administrator program which includes administrative privileges because Kalish teaches “Privileged subsystem 142 is a subsystem created by code adapted instruct a processor in the computing device to create the subsystem in the operating system with the subsystem having root level access to at least some of the computing system resources via the operating system” (see [0031] of Kalish)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a local administrator program as taught by Kalish in the volume reduction method as taught by Moyal in view of Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to create and provide subsystems for specialized tasks” (Kalish: [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 15’s 103 rejection. Claim 16 recites all the limitation included in claim 2 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 2. Moyal also teaches audio message (see: “Configured action items and messages may be in the form of audio messages…”, col. 14, ln. 4-5). Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand further in view of Kalish.
Regarding claim 17, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 15’s 103 rejection. Claim 16 recites all the limitation included in claim 3 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 3. Moyal also teaches audio message (see: “Configured action items and messages may be in the form of audio messages…”, col. 14, ln. 4-5). Therefore, claim 17 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand further in view of Kalish.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1) further in view of Naik et al. (US 20100211199 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal in view of Rand is salient about the remote signal is configured to be acted upon by a hardware circuit of the smart radio that causes a reduction to the volume setting.
Naik teaches a hardware circuit is being used in a volume control system, and it is well-known in the art to incorporate a hardware circuit in an audio volume control system (see [0088-0089]: “As shown in FIG. 8, the audio processing circuitry 62 may include a coder-decoder component (codec) 132, a mixer 134, and dynamic audio ducking logic 136…The dynamic audio ducking logic 136 may include both hardware and/or software components”, also see [0127]: “the audio ducking schemes may be integrated as part of the dynamic audio ducking logic 136 within the audio processing circuitry 62”, further see Fig. 8).
Therefore, at the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system of Moyal in view of Rand as modified could have used a hardware circuit for the desirable purpose to effectively adjust the volume.
Regarding claim 18, since the claimed system comprises the same operations conducted by the method in claim 4, claim 18 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand further in view of Naik for the reasons mentioned in claim 4’s 103 rejection.
Claim 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1) further in view of Gao et al. (US 20150180432 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal in view of Rand also teaches “…the authenticating of the smart radio enables the administrative platform with control over the streaming audio application and causes a reduction to the volume setting” (cloud can be part of the administrative platform, identity verification on the cloud is authenticating and enables tasks, see Moyal “The server 112 may also be located in a cloud computing deployment model, such as a private cloud…”, col. 7, ln. 61-63, also see Moyal “Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks… User portal 83 provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators”, col. 17, ln. 59-63; one enabled task can be the administrative platform sending an instruction and message, see Moyal:“…the selective sound allowance program…110B…may provide a configured action item (i.e., remediation instructions), as well as a message, to identified employees within the boundary range for the problem/accident in response to the received sound. The message may include a warning, an alert, or recommended safety actions in response to the problem/accident. Configured action items and messages may be in the form of audio messages transmitted through the noise cancellation headsets (e.g., headset IoT device 118) of identified employees within the boundary range for the problem/accident. Configured action items and messages may also be in the form of text messages transmitted to machines (e.g., machine IoT device 120) of the IWE” col. 13, ln 64-67, col. 14, ln. 1-10; upon receiving the message, audio volume will be reduced, i.e. the message causes volume reduction, see Rand [0009]: ”Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications”)
Moyal in view of Rand does not teach the remote signal is configured to be received by the streaming audio application.
Gao teaches the remote signal is configured to be received by the streaming audio application (a message is the remote signal for audio volume adjustment, which is redirected, i.e. received, by the application on the remote device as the audio volume adjustment inputs, the streaming audio application can be the application and the remote device can be the smart radio. Volume adjustment includes a reduction to the volume setting, at least the message is part of the remote signal, see[0003]:”… the virtual desktop client sends a message to a virtual desktop agent running on the remote device to adjust the audio output level of one or more applications running on the remote device…the audio volume adjustment inputs made on the mobile device are redirected to the application(s) on the remote device and adjust the audio output level of the application(s) on the remote device”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the streaming audio application to receive the remote signal as taught by Gao in the volume reduction method as taught by Moyal in view of Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to adjust the level of audio output of an application running on a remote device”. (Gao: [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, since the claimed system comprises the same operations conducted by the method in claim 5, claim 19 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand further in view of Gao for the reasons mentioned in claim 5’s 103 rejection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1) further in view of Sunstrum (US 20170192745 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal also teaches transmitting an audio safety notice toward the smart radio and the limitation except where underlined “remotely causing the smart radio to play the audio safety notice at a volume higher that the reduces the volume setting of the streaming audio application” (the noise cancellation headsets is part of the smart radio, and an alert in the form of an audio message is an audio safety notice played by the noise cancellation headsets, which is triggered remotely since 110B is on a remote server, see “the selective sound allowance program…110B…may dynamically alter (e.g., increase, decrease) a loudness level of the received sound so that the identified employees within the boundary range can hear the received sound through their noise cancellation headsets, be alerted to the problem/accident…” col.13, ln 38-44, also see “The message may include a warning, an alert… messages may be in the form of audio messages transmitted through the noise cancellation headsets” col.14, ln.1-2).
Moyal in view of Rand does not teach the limitation where underlined “remotely causing the smart radio to play the audio safety notice at a volume higher that the reduces the volume setting of the streaming audio application”
Sunstrum teaches play the audio safety notice at a higher volume than the volume of the streaming audio application (the first audio signal with higher priority can be the audio safety notice and is played at a higher volume than the second audio signal, i.e. previously reduced audio played by the streaming audio application, see [0039]: “ if a first incoming audio signal has a higher priority than a second incoming audio signal, the two audio signals will be mixed together by the processor 118 but the first audio signal will be given a higher magnitude by the processor 118 and therefore sound louder than the second audio signal”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have played the streaming audio at a higher volume as taught by Sunstrum in the volume adjustment method as taught by Moyal in view of Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “automatically…adjust audio source mixing and transmission to the speakers”. (Sunstrum: [0066]).
Claim 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moyal et al. (US 11501749 B1) in view of Rand (US 20160036962 A1) further in view of Paige et al. (US 20060222186 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Moyal in view of Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Moyal in view of Rand does not teach modifies an audio input channel away from the streaming
audio application to a safety channel.
Paige teaches modifies an audio input channel away from the streaming audio application to a safety channel (The audio switch matrix has multiple input channels and can switch, i.e. modify away, from one channel, i.e. the one for the streaming audio application, to another, i.e. a safety channel, in response to a control command from a remote control interface, i.e. a remote signal, see [0038]: “…a second set of signal inputs coupled to the output of audio switch matrix 301”, also see Fig. 3; further see [0040]: “Control unit 309 comprises a microcontroller or similar integrated circuit controller that receives commands from client 123 via serial port connector 305 and/or a remote control interface 307. Control unit 309 generates control commands to audio switch unit 301 and relays 302”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated the switch matrix as taught by Paige in the volume adjustment method as taught by Moyal in view of Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “allows selection of various digital input sources”. (Paige: [0009]).
Regarding claim 21, since the claimed system comprises the same operations conducted by the method in claim 8, claim 21 is rejected as being obvious over Moyal in view of Rand further in view of Paige for the reasons mentioned in claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rand (US 20160036962 A1) in view of Kalish et al. (US 20170063966 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 9’s 102 rejection. Claim 10 recites all the limitation included in claim 2 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 2. Rand also teaches audio message (a voice message is an audio message as well as a remote signal, see [0009]: “Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted operating system’s root level access as taught by Kalish in the volume regulating method as taught by Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to create and provide subsystems for specialized tasks” (Kalish: [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 9’s 102 rejection. Claim 11 recites all the limitation included in claim 2 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 3. Rand also teaches audio message (a voice message is an audio message as well as a remote signal, see [0009]: “Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted operating system’s root level access as taught by Kalish in the volume regulating method as taught by Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to create and provide subsystems for specialized tasks” (Kalish: [0022]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rand (US 20160036962 A1) in view of Naik et al. (US 20100211199 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 9’s 102 rejection. Claim 12 recites all the limitation included in claim 4 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 4. Rand also teaches audio message (a voice message is an audio message as well as a remote signal, see [0009]: “Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the hardware circuit as taught by Naik in the volume regulating method as taught by Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for “enhancing a user's listening experience” (Naik: [0036]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rand (US 20160036962 A1) in view of Gao et al. (US 20150180432 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Rand teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 9’s 102 rejection. Claim 13 recites all the limitation included in claim 5 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 5. Rand also teaches audio message (a voice message is an audio message as well as a remote signal, see [0009]: “Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the streaming audio application to receive the audio message as taught by Gao in the volume regulating method as taught by Rand. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to adjust the level of audio output of an application running on a remote device”. (Gao: [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rand (US 20160036962 A1) in view of Gao et al. (US 20150180432 A1) further in view of Sunstrum (US 20170192745 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Rand in view of Gao teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 13’s 103 rejection. Claim 14 recites all the limitation included in claim 6 except “audio message”, see the rejection in claim 6. Rand also teaches audio message (a voice message is an audio message as well as a remote signal, see [0009]: “Communications applications typically build in code that causes the music audio to be “ducked” to a fixed level for incoming calls and other events such as voice message playback and notifications…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have played the streaming audio at a higher volume as taught by Sunstrum in the volume regulating method as taught by Rand in view of Gao. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “automatically…adjust audio source mixing and transmission to the speakers”. (Sunstrum: [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hatton et al. (US 20220351596 A1) teaches safety system or workers comprising a base station in communication with a number of portable units (see Abstract)
Day, II (US 20170149795 A1) teaches a network based system for remote controlling authenticated smart phones (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights