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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2, 8-9, 15-16, 22 are each rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as each being unpatentable over the combination of Claims 1+3+4+6+7 of U.S. Patent 12,250,529. This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been issued to patent. Although the conflicting claims do not recite identical language, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-22 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as each being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9 of U.S. Patent 11,363,382 (hereinafter ‘382). Claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-18, 21-22 of the instant application are each rejected in view of Claims 1+3+4+6+7 of ‘382. Claims 5, 12, 19 of the instant application are each rejected in view of Claim 9 of ‘382. This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been issued to patent. Although the conflicting claims do not recite identical language, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, but for the outstanding rejections under non-statutory double patenting contained herein: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (MILLINGTON, US Patent No: 8,234,395; WOO, US Patent No: 10,284,980) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“A computer-implemented method, comprising: at an electronic device with a communication device: receiving, via the communication device, a request to participate in an audio timing synchronization process from a second device, different from the electronic device; transmitting, via the communication device, a confirmation to participate in the audio timing synchronization process; subsequent to transmitting the confirmation, detecting an audio tone output from a reference device, different from the electronic device and the second device; and in response to detecting the outputted audio tone: initiating a process to adjust an audio timing synchronization setting of a third device based at least in part on data generated based on the outputted audio tone, including transmitting the data generated based on the outputted audio tone to the second device”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record MILLINGTON does not teach or suggest in detail subsequent to transmitting a confirmation for participation is synchronization, detecting an audio tone output from a reference device, different from the electronic device and the second device and in response to detecting the outputted audio tone initiating a process to adjust an audio timing synchronization setting of a third device based at least in part on data generated based on the outputted audio tone, including transmitting the data generated based on the outputted audio tone to the second device as presented by the Applicant.
MILLINGTON only discloses a communication device that receives a request to participate in an audio timing synchronization process from a second device external to the electronic device, wherein the audio timing synchronization process is for adjusting one or more audio output settings associated with the second device. The closest NPL FUJISAKI (FUJISAKI, “Temporal frequency characteristics of synchrony-asynchrony discrimination of audio-visual signals”, 2005) discusses generally participants viewing multimedia designed for generated views for synchronization but is silent to as to the inventive intent or participant interaction for audio synchronization as claimed by the Applicant.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites an electronic device with a communication device that receives, via the communication device, a request to participate in an audio timing synchronization process from a second device, different from the electronic device. The claims further recite transmitting, via the communication device, a confirmation to participate in the audio timing synchronization process as well as subsequent to transmitting the confirmation, detecting an audio tone output from a reference device, different from the electronic device and the second device and in response to detecting the outputted audio tone: initiating a process to adjust an audio timing synchronization setting of a third device based at least in part on data generated based on the outputted audio tone, including transmitting the data generated based on the outputted audio tone to the second device.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-22 are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under non-statutory double patenting contained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights