Obviousness

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the claimed invention in U.S. Patent 9,602,649 would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. This analysis relies on combining teachings from the prior art references cited in the patent's prosecution history.

The primary inventive concept of the '649 patent is not simply using a sensory event to trigger pairing between devices, but its method of event disambiguation. This is achieved by adding a secondary verification step: after a trigger event (e.g., a tap sound) is detected, the devices compare their respective recordings of the ambient audio background from a shared time interval relative to that trigger. The pairing is confirmed only if this background audio is sufficiently similar, proving the devices share the same acoustic environment and thus reducing false positives from echoes or non-proximate devices.

Based on the provided prior art, the claims of US Patent 9,602,649 are likely obvious in view of the combination of WO2009014438A1 ('438) and US20060282649A1 ('649A1).

---

Primary Combination: WO '438 in view of US '649A1

1. The Starting Point: WO '438

A PHOSITA would begin with the teachings of WO '438, which was filed by the same original assignee (TNO) and is identified in the '649 patent as the background art. WO '438 discloses a nearly complete system for pairing proximate devices. It teaches:

• Using a "sensory identifier," specifically mentioning the sound of tapping two devices together, to initiate a matching process (fulfilling the preamble and the detection of a sensory identifier in claim 1).
• Each device detecting this identifier and creating a representation of it for matching (fulfilling the "using said detected sensory identifier for matching the devices" element of claim 1).

The problem with the '438 method, as acknowledged by the '649 patent itself, is its susceptibility to errors. A nearby, uninvolved device might detect the tapping sound, or an echo might cause a device to detect the event incorrectly, leading to false matches. A PHOSITA would be motivated to improve the reliability of the '438 system by finding a way to verify that the devices that detected the tap are truly next to each other.

2. The Solution: US '649A1

Seeking to solve this reliability and ambiguity problem, the PHOSITA would look to other methods of device pairing that use audio. They would find US '649A1, which teaches pairing devices by using a synchronized voice command. Crucially, '649A1 teaches the concept of verifying a shared event by recording and comparing audio signals from multiple devices. It states that if the audio signals (of the voice command) are "substantially identical," the devices are paired.

3. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

The motivation to combine the teachings of these two references would have been straightforward: to enhance the accuracy of the pairing method in WO '438. A PHOSITA would recognize that the ambiguity problem in '438 (is the detected tap sound the real event or an echo?) could be solved by adding a second layer of verification.

US '649A1 teaches that comparing audio signals is a known method for confirming that multiple devices have experienced the same audio event. While '649A1 compares the sensory identifier itself (the voice command), a PHOSITA would understand that this principle could be applied differently to solve the specific problem of the '438 system. They would reason that two devices in the same immediate vicinity do not just hear the same sharp trigger sound, but also share the same continuous, complex acoustic background.

Therefore, the PHOSITA would be motivated to modify the '438 system as follows:

• Keep the tap sound from '438 as the initial trigger and matching event.
• Incorporate the audio comparison technique from '649A1 not for the simple tap sound, but for the ambient background noise that is continuously present. The devices in '438 are already equipped with microphones for recording, so this would be an application of existing hardware.
• Use the trigger from '438 as the synchronization point to define a common time interval for the background audio comparison. Comparing the audio from a time interval immediately preceding the trigger (as preferred in claim 2 and 3 of the '649 patent) would be an obvious design choice for efficiency, as the data would be available for immediate analysis the moment the trigger is detected.

This combination would lead directly to the method claimed in Claim 1 of the '649 patent. The PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as it is a fundamental principle of acoustics that two microphones placed close together in the same environment will record highly similar ambient sound. This would provide a robust method for disambiguating the trigger event and confirming true proximity.

The same logic applies to the apparatus claimed in Claim 18. A device from '438 already contains the "recording unit" and "detection unit." A PHOSITA motivated to improve its reliability based on the teachings of '649A1 would add a "comparison unit" and "decision unit" (i.e., software logic on a processor) to perform the ambient audio check. This constitutes a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a predictable result.