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 .
Claims 1-5, 8-17 and 20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna et al. (hereinafter Luna) (US 20160270717 A1) in view of Lettow (US 20160327979 A1) .
Luna and Lettow were cited as prior art in the previous office action mailed on 10/21/2025. Their teachings are incorporated by reference to the extent that is applicable to amended claims1.
By way of amendment, Applicant inserted the limitation “wherein changing the functionality comprises (i) converting at least one file in a first format into a second file format and (ii) loading the file in the second file format into the device to provide a different functionality” into claim 1.
As to claim 1, Luna further teaches wherein changing the functionality comprises (i) converting at least one file in a first format into a second file format and (ii) loading the file in the second file format into the device to provide a different functionality [0062: “As shown, audio module 414 may be configured to manage encoded or unencoded data gathered from various types of audio sensors. In some examples, audio module 414 may include one or more codecs that are used to encode or decode various types of audio waveforms. For example, analog audio input may be encoded by audio module 414 and, once encoded, sent as a signal or collection of data packets, messages, segments, frames, or the like to logic module 404 for transmission via communications module 406…With regard to data captured, sensor input evaluation module 420 may be a software engine or module that is used to evaluate and analyze data received from one or more inputs (e.g., sensors 302-328) to band 200. When received, data may be analyzed by sensor input evaluation module 420, which may include custom or “off-the-shelf” analytics packages that are configured to provide application-specific analysis of data to determine trends, patterns, and other useful information. In other examples, sensor input module 420 may also include firmware or software that enables the generation of various types and formats of reports for presenting data and any analysis performed thereupon.”] [Sensed/input data are converted.].
As to claims 2-5, 8-17 and 20, the rejections are respectfully maintained for the same reasons recited in the previous office action mailed on 10/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark, Applicant argued in substance that Luna in view of Lettow fails to teach wherein changing the functionality comprises (i) converting at least one file in a first format into a second file format and (ii) loading the file in the second file format into the device to provide a different functionality.
Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s argument with the reason cited in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUXING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/XUXING CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights