DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12306283. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations as written and claimed in the instant application are present in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12306283.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.12306283. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations as written and claimed in the instant application are present in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.12306283.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.12306283. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations as written and claimed in the instant application are present in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.12306283.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No.12306283. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations as written and claimed in the instant application are present in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No.12306283.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Hoiydi (US 20200029160 A1) in view of Kadri (US 20170094437 A1).
Regarding claim 1, El-Hoiydi teaches a method for determining a distance between two devices, comprising: playing audio (52) at a first device (14). (Paragraphs 71, 95-96, Figs.2-3)
El-Hoiydi also teaches recording, via a microphone (30) of a second device (16), the audio played by the first device (14). (Paragraphs 57-61, Figs.2-4)
El-Hoiydi also teaches transmitting audio data from the first device (14) to the second device (16) via a Bluetooth connection (data may be exchanged between the hearing device and the mobile device, for example via BLUETOOTH), wherein the audio data corresponds to the audio played at the first device. (Paragraphs 29, 67, 70, Claims 1, 4, Figs.2-4)
El-Hoiydi also teaches determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on a latency constant of a Bluetooth connection between the first device and the second device. (Paragraphs 58, 81, 29-30, 23)
El-Hoiydi does not explicitly teach determining a time delay based on the audio played at the first device and the audio recorded via the microphone of the second device and determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay.
Kadri teaches determining a time delay based on the audio played at the first device (102-124) and the audio recorded via the microphone (220) of the second device (102-124). (Paragraphs 32-33, 96, 125, 39, Fig.2)
Kadri also teaches determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay. (Paragraphs 32-33, 96, 125, 39, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify El-Hoiydi to incorporate determining a time delay based on the audio played at the first device and the audio recorded via the microphone of the second device and determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay as taught by Kadri in order to determine an angular orientation and henceforth distance of the playback device relative to each other.
Regarding claim 2, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the audio data is transmitted by the first device simultaneously with the audio being played at the first device. (Paragraph 57, 63, 99, Fig.3)
Regarding claim 3, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the audio data is transmitted by the first device before or after the audio is played at the first device according to an offset time. (Paragraph 57, 63, 99, Fig.3)
Regarding claim 4, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the latency constant is a known latency constant associated with Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) Audio. (Paragraphs 30, 58, 62)
Regarding claim 5, El-Hoiydi does not explicitly teach wherein the time delay is determined based on a first point in time corresponding to when the audio was played by the first device and a second point in time corresponding to when the audio was recorded by the second device.
Kadri teaches wherein the time delay is determined based on a first point in time corresponding to when the audio was played by the first device and a second point in time corresponding to when the audio was recorded by the second device. (Paragraphs 96)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify El-Hoiydi to incorporate wherein the time delay is determined based on a first point in time corresponding to when the audio was played by the first device and a second point in time corresponding to when the audio was recorded by the second device as taught by Kadri in order to determine an angular orientation and henceforth distance of the playback device relative to each other.
Regarding claim 6, El-Hoiydi does not explicitly teach wherein the distance is determined by multiplying the time delay by a speed of sound.
Kadri teaches wherein the distance is determined by multiplying the time delay by a speed of sound. (Paragraphs 125, 96)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify El-Hoiydi to incorporate wherein the distance is determined by multiplying the time delay by a speed of sound as taught by Kadri in order to determine an angular orientation and henceforth distance of the playback device relative to each other.
Regarding claim 8, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the Bluetooth connection is a Bluetooth protocol. (Paragraphs 30, 58, 62) El-Hoiydi discloses the claimed invention except for Broadcast Isochronous Stream. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate Broadcast Isochronous Stream, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 9, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the Bluetooth connection is a Bluetooth protocol. (Paragraphs 30, 58, 62) El-Hoiydi discloses the claimed invention except for a connected isochronous stream. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate a connected isochronous stream, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 10, El-Hoiydi teaches wherein the first device is a smartphone or tablet computer, and wherein the second device is an earbud, hearing aid, audio headset, smart speaker, or set of audio eyeglasses. (Paragraphs 58-59, 61-63, Figs.2-3)
Regarding claim 11, El-Hoiydi teaches a system for determining a distance between two devices, comprising: a first device (14) configured to play audio (52) and transmit audio data corresponding to the audio via a Bluetooth connection (data may be exchanged between the hearing device and the mobile device, for example via BLUETOOTH). (Paragraphs 70-71, 95-96, 29, 67, Figs.2-3)
El-Hoiydi also teaches a second device (16) comprising a microphone (30), wherein the microphone is configured to record the audio played at the first device (14), and wherein the second device is configured to receive the audio data transmitted by the first device via the Bluetooth connection. (Paragraphs 57-61, 29, 67, 70, Claims 1, 4, Figs.2-4)
El-Hoiydi also teaches determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on a latency constant of the Bluetooth connection between the first device and the second device. (Paragraphs 58, 81, 29-30, 23)
El-Hoiydi does not explicitly teach a processor configured to: determine a time delay based on the audio played at the first device and the audio recorded via the microphone of the second device and determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay.
Kadri teaches a processor configured to: determine a time delay based on the audio played at the first device (102-124) and the audio recorded via the microphone (220) of the second device (102-124). (Paragraphs 32-33, 96, 125, 39, Fig.2)
Kadri also teaches determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay. (Paragraphs 32-33, 96, 125, 39, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify El-Hoiydi to incorporate a processor configured to: determine a time delay based on the audio played at the first device and the audio recorded via the microphone of the second device and determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the time delay as taught by Kadri in order to determine an angular orientation and henceforth distance of the playback device relative to each other.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 19, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Hoiydi in view of Kadri and Keyser-Allen (US 20170181113 A1)
Regarding claim 7, El-Hoiydi does not explicitly teach wherein the first point in time is determined by subtracting the latency constant from the second point in time.
Keyser-Allen teaches wherein the first point in time is determined by subtracting the latency constant from the second point in time. (Paragraphs 41-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify El-Hoiydi to incorporate wherein the first point in time is determined by subtracting the latency constant from the second point in time as taught by Keyser-Allen in order to determine a time to play the content.
Regarding claim 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights