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 .
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. (11,742,815). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader variation of the patented claims and would have been anticipated by the prior patent.
The claim(s) 8-10 & 15-17 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 1-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 11, 18 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 4 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 12, 19 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 13-14 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 6-7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 20 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. (12,289,085). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader variation of the patented claims and would have been anticipated by the prior patent.
The claim(s) 8-10 & 15-17 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 1-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 11, 18 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 4 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 12, 19 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 13-14 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 6-7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 20 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (1) as being anticipated by Yuzuriha et al. (US 10,708,702 B2).
Claim 1, Yuzuriha et al. disclose of a method, comprising: determining a gain based on a difference of sound pressure levels (SPLs) at locations of microphones and a SPL at a distance from a speaker (fig.2 (60); col.7 line 50-67 & col.14 line 25-50); and applying the gain to a speaker output (col.7 line 45-55 & col.8 line 5-11).
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is performed at the microphones simultaneously (col.7 line 5-10).
The method of claim 1, comprising determining a first SPL at a first distance and a second SPL at a second distance, wherein the first SPL and the second SPL are the SPLs at the locations of the microphones (fig.1 (20); col.5 line 45-67; col.6 line 15-30).
The claim(s) 8-10 & 15-17 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 1-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuzuriha et al. (US 10,708,702 B2) and Tu et al. (US 10,904,691 B1).
The method of claim 3, but the prior art never specify as comprising determining an attenuation of the speaker based on a difference of the first SPL and the second SPL.
But, the prior art as in Tu et al. disclose of the similar issue concerning such a method as determining an attenuation of the speaker based on a difference of the first SPL and the second SPL (col.2 line 35-52). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such method as determining an attenuation of the speaker based on a difference of the first SPL and the second SPL to adjust the speaker to achieve good sound field toward a target according to various position of speakers.
The claim(s) 11, 18 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 4 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuzuriha et al. (US 10,708,702 B2) and Coombs (US 6,775,385 B1).
The method of claim 1, but the prior art never specifies as comprising determining a sensitivity of the speaker based on the SPL measured at the distance from the speaker when the speaker is driven by a reference voltage.
But Coombs disclose of the method comprising determining a sensitivity of the speaker based on the SPL measured at the distance from the speaker when the speaker is driven by a reference voltage (col.2 line 40-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such method comprising determining a sensitivity of the speaker based on the SPL measured at the distance from the speaker when the speaker is driven by a reference voltage so as to determine the driving efficiency of the noted speaker.
The claim(s) 12, 19 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuzuriha et al. (US 10,708,702 B2) and Davis et al. (US 9,118,999 B2).
The method of claim 1, but the prior art never specifies such method comprising measuring a frequency response signal of a played stimulus signal via the speaker.
Davis discloses of a similar method comprising measuring a frequency response signal of a played stimulus signal via the speaker (col.1 line 40-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept related to measuring a frequency response signal of a played stimulus signal via the speaker so as to adjust the speaker according to the particular characteristic of the room.
The method of claim 6, wherein the played stimulus signal comprises a multitone signal that is detected at the microphones at a target SPL threshold (Davis- col.1 line 40-50).
The claim(s) 13-14 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 6-7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 20 which in substance disclose of the same feature to that of claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights