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
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 2, the phrase “selected,.” in line 4 should be “selected.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SO et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0031648).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-11, SO teaches a display device comprising:
a speaker (fig.1, 3, 5-10; paragraphs 0009-0030);
a display that displays a volume adjustment UI for adjusting the volume of audio output through the speaker (figs.5-10; paragraphs 0026-0030, 0033, 0075-0077);
a wireless communication interface that connects to at least one external speaker (fig.5-10; paragraph 0019, 0027, 0058, 0084, 0085); and
a controller that displays the volume adjustment UI for adjusting the volume of the speaker and the external speaker when connected to the external speaker upon receiving a volume adjustment command (figs.2, item 130, fig.11; paragraphs 0003, 0021, 0026-0030, 0032, 0033, 0075-0077).
Regarding claim 2, SO teaches wherein the controller that transmits a sound volume adjusting command [i.e., notification signal] to the external speaker corresponding to the selected volume adjustment UI when the volume adjustment UI for adjusting the volume of the external speaker is selected (fig.6; paragraphs 0143-0146).
Regarding claim 4, SO teaches wherein the controller displays a plurality of volume adjustment UIs for adjusting the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers when receiving the volume adjustment command, if there are a plurality of external speakers connected to the display device (fig.6; paragraph 0166).
Regarding claim 5, SO teaches wherein the controller simultaneously adjusts the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers corresponding to each of the plurality of volume adjustment UIs when two or more of the plurality of volume adjustment UIs are selected and then a volume adjustment command is received (fig.6; paragraphs 0068, 0077, “When the user selects a plurality of speaker apparatuses prior to the sound volume adjusting manipulation and the sound volume adjusting manipulation of the user is sound volume adjusting manipulation of any one of the plurality of selected speaker apparatuses, the controller 130 may control the communication interface 110 to transmit a sound volume adjusting command corresponding to the sound volume adjusting manipulation to each of the plurality of speaker apparatuses selected by the user”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SO et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0320082).
Regarding claim 3, SO does not specifically teach wherein the notification signal includes one of a notification sound signal, an LED notification signal, and a vibration signal. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the notification signal includes one of a notification sound signal, an LED notification signal, and a vibration signal is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO to incorporate the feature of wherein the notification signal includes one of a notification sound signal, an LED notification signal, and a vibration signal in SO’s invention in order to provide a particular form of notification for a particular information.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SO et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0320082) in view of HU et al. (Chinese. Pub. No. CN105933822A).
Regarding claim 6, SO teaches wherein the controller displays a plurality of volume adjustment UIs for adjusting the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers (fig.6; paragraphs 0143-0146).
However, SO does not specifically teach adjusting the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers based on the priority of each of the plurality of external speakers. HU teaches adjusting the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers based on the priority of each of the plurality of external speakers (6th paragraph under “invention contents” in page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO to incorporate the feature of adjusting the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers based on the priority of each of the plurality of external speakers in SO’s invention as taught by HU. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide audio output based on priority level of corresponding speaker conveniently.
Regarding claim 7, SO does not specifically teach wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers. HU teaches wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers (6th paragraph under “invention contents” in page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO to incorporate the feature of wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers in SO’s invention as taught by HU. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide audio output based on priority level of corresponding speaker conveniently.
Regarding claim 8, SO does not specifically teach wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the distance from each of the plurality of external speakers. HU teaches wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the position [i.e., distance] from each of the plurality of external speakers (2th paragraph in page 6, “the corresponding information of the priority level, which can be applied to the vehicle sound control system simultaneously receives a plurality of different audio signal, because it can according to configuration information of different types of the audio signal output to the speaker at different positions to play, so the vehicle sound control system of the embodiment of the invention can realize synchronously playing different audio signals. Further, because different audio signals having different priority levels, the invention further can according to the audio signal with different priority level control different audio signals to different volume to play, so as to brings better user experience to the passengers and driver”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO to incorporate the feature of wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the distance from each of the plurality of external speakers in SO’s invention as taught by HU. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide audio output based on priority level of corresponding speaker at different position conveniently.
Regarding claim 9, SO in view of HU does not specifically teach wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the order in which each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the order in which each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO in view of HU to incorporate the feature of wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the order in which each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device in SO’s invention in view of HU’s invention in order to provide audio output based on priority level of corresponding speaker at different order conveniently.
Regarding claim 10, SO in view of HU does not specifically teach wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the number of times each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the number of times each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO in view of HU to incorporate the feature of wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the number of times each of the plurality of external speakers is connected to the display device in SO’s invention in view of HU’s invention in order to provide audio output based on priority level of corresponding speaker at different connection conveniently.
Regarding claim 11, SO in view of HU does not specifically teach wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the number of times the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers is adjusted during a preset time. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the number of times the volume of each of the plurality of external speakers is adjusted during a preset time is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SO in view of HU to incorporate the feature of wherein the controller obtains the priority based on the distance from each of the plurality of external speakers in SO’s invention in view of HU’s invention in order to provide audio output based on priority level in accordance with adjustment times of volume of corresponding speaker at a particular time conveniently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md S. Elahee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights