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
Claims 2-26 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 25-26 are new.
Claims 2-10, 14-16, 20-21, 23-24 are amended.
Claim 1 remains cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection is withdrawn from claim 23 based on applicant’s amendment.
Priority
The case is afforded priority of 9/14/2015 for being a continuation of Application 14853680, now Patent 9800905.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 4/24/26, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
REMARKS
Applicant has amended the claims to include features of a plurality of alternative audio formats and second portion of a content item in a second alternative audio format.
Applicant is cautioned on diverging claimed material. While sampling rates are features of audio formats, the inclusion of video content may require searching a different invention (claim 16 vs claim 2). The applicant is asked to keep the claims in parallel scope.
Applicant’s invention as claimed:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 24, 26; 9, 11-12, 14; 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al.
2. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving information identifying a plurality of alternative audio formats for a content item (Wakeland: page 2, para 18-22);
sending, to an audio output device, a first portion of the content item, wherein the first portion comprises audio in a first alternative audio format of the plurality of alternative audio (Wakeland: page 2, para 18-22);
receiving, by a computing device, an audio recording, based on the audio in the first alternative audio format (Wakeland: page 4, para 37-38); and
selecting, based on the audio recording and for a second portion of the content item, a second alternative audio format of the plurality of alternative audio formats, wherein the audio in the second alternative audio format has a different audio quality level from the first alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4); and
sending, to the audio output device, the second portion of the content item (Wakeland: page 6, para 60-62).
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the second portion of the content item is subsequent to the first portion of the content item (Wakeland: Figure 2, page 6, para 60-62).
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the audio output device comprises a plurality of speakers, and wherein the second alternative audio format is selected based on a layout of the plurality of speakers (Wakeland: page 2, para 20).
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the different audio quality level comprises a sampling rate different from a maximum sampling rate associated with the first alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, recommend vs Maximum).
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
using audio measurements taken during presentation of an initial portion of the content item to adjust audio parameters of a subsequent portion of the content item, wherein the first portion of the content item comprises the initial portion of the content item, and the second portion of the content item comprises the subsequent portion of the content item (Wakeland: page 4, para 42; page 5, para 44-51).
24. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
selecting the second alternative audio format based on an analysis of the audio recording of the first alternative audio format, wherein the analysis indicates an alternative audio format, of the plurality of alternative audio formats, should include an added or removed audio channel relative to the first alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, page 6, para 60-62).
26. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the first alternative audio format comprises a different maximum sampling rate than the second alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4).
9. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
sending, to an audio output device associated with a user device, digitally encoded audio corresponding to a first alternative audio format of first video content (Wakeland: page 2, para 18-22);
receiving, from the user device, audio information based on an audio recording of an output of the digitally encoded audio corresponding to the first alternative audio format of the first video content (Wakeland: page 4, para 37-38; Figure 4); and
causing selection, based on the audio information, of a second alternative audio format of second video content, wherein the second alternative audio format has a different audio quality level from the first alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, page 6, para 60-62).
11. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein the audio information comprises a sound sample that is generated by the user device and that is based on the digitally encoded audio corresponding to the first video content (Wakeland: page 2, para 22-23; page 3, para 28).
12. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein the audio information comprises data indicating an analysis of a sound sample, wherein the sound sample is generated by the user device based on the digitally encoded audio corresponding to the first video content (Wakeland: Figure 4).
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the first alternative audio format comprises a different sampling rate than the second alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, row a vs b, vs c).
23. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the first alternative audio format is encoded at a plurality of different sampling rate than the second alternative audio format, further comprising:
selecting, based on the audio recording of the output, a sampling rate of a plurality of different sampling rates, wherein the sampling rate is associated with the second alternative audio format; and
generating sending, based on the selected sampling rate, the second video content comprising the second alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, page 6, para 60-62).
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.
Claims 4-5; 15; 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al in view of 20120075957 by De Bruijn (hereinafter DB).
Regarding claim 4, the Wakeland reference teaches the method of claim 2 with a microphone.
The Wakeland reference fails to teach an instruction to position a device for recording audio.
However, in analogous art, the De Bruijn reference teaches:
Using a positioned device for recoding audio (De Bruijn: pages 1-2, para 5, 15) in order to measure speaker performance and efficiently estimate speaker positions (DB: page 2, para 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the positioning of a recording device of DB into the method of outputting different audio to in order to measure speaker performance and efficiently estimate speaker positions (DB: page 2, para 15).
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, further comprising sending, an instruction comprising a request to position a device, for recording audio, relative to a display (DB: pages 1-2, para 5-9, 15; para 93. DB doesn’t mention the display for recording but does mention location relative to speakers and using the remote in association to the display).
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the first alternative audio format comprises a different number of audio channels than the second alternative audio format (Wakeland: page 2, para 20; DB: para 23, 121).
25. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the first alternative audio format comprises a different number of audio channels than the second alternative audio format (Boehm: col 1, lines 38-62).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al in view of 9628933 by Boehm.
Regarding claim 13, the Wakeland reference teaches the method of claim 9 with a plurality of speakers.
The Wakeland reference fails to teach an data indicating a layout of speakers.
However, in analogous art, the Boehm reference teaches:
wherein the audio output device comprises a plurality of speakers, and the audio information comprises data indicating a layout of the plurality of speakers (Boehm: col 1, lines 38-62) in order to rendering multi-channel audio across different speaker setups (Boehm: col. 1, lines 10-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the positioning of a speakers as taught by Boehm into the method of outputting different audio to in order to rendering multi-channel audio across different speaker setups (Boehm: col. 1, lines 10-40).
Claims 10; 16-17; 19-20, 22; are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al in view of 20070230913 by Ichimura.
Regarding claim 10, the Wakeland reference teaches a first content is output and recorded before adjusting to a second content based on the measurements of the first content. Wakeland teaches audio sampling that includes MPEG (Moving Pictures Expert Group which is a video standard).
Wakeland fails to teach that the audio is associated with video content but does teach a GUI associated with the process of displaying status of the recordings analysis.
In analogous art, the Ichimura reference teaches a first video content is changed and format altered by the signal to accommodate shifts at various timings (Ichimura: Page 5, para 54-55) in order to process and output content with various different formats (Ichimura: page 1, para 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the use of video as taught by Ichimura into the method of outputting different audio formats in order to process and output content with various different formats (Ichimura: page 1, para 13).
16. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
recording, by a user device, a first audio output of a first alternative audio corresponding to first video content (Wakeland: page 4, para 37-38; Figure 4);
sending, based on the recording of the first audio output, audio information (Wakeland: Figure 4, page 6, para 60-62); and
recording, by the user device and based on the audio information, a second audio output of a second alternative audio format corresponding to a second content that has a different audio quality level from the first alternative audio format corresponding to the first content (Wakeland: Figure 4, page 6, para 60-62).
Wakeland fails to teach that the audio is associated with video content but does teach a GUI associated with the process of displaying status of the recordings analysis and Wakeland fails to teach a second recording.
The examiner notes that applicant is repeating the step of recording for a second audio output. The examiner believes this is an obvious variation in which the first step is merely repeated and applicant is duplicating parts for multiple effects - St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977). The examiner maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the step to verify configuration changes were implemented.
In analogous art, the Ichimura reference teaches a first video content is changed and format altered by the signal to accommodate shifts at various timings (Ichimura: Page 5, para 54-55) in order to process and output content with various different formats (Ichimura: page 1, para 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the use of video as taught by Ichimura into the method of outputting different audio formats in order to process and output content with various different formats (Ichimura: page 1, para 13).
17. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, wherein the first video content is a first content portion of a video asset and the second video content is a second content portion of the video asset, and the second content portion of the video asset is subsequent to the first content portion of the video asset (Wakeland: Figure 2, page 6, para 60-62 teaches subsequent; Ichimura: Page 5, para 54-55).
19. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, further comprising generating, by the user device and based on analysis of the recording of the first audio output, the audio information (Wakeland: page 4, para 42; page 5, para 44-51).
20. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 16, wherein the first alternative audio format comprises a different sampling rate than the second alternative audio format (Wakeland: Figure 4, row a vs b, vs c).
Claim 22 is rejected as substantially similar to claim 16 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al in view of 20070230913 by Ichimura in further view of 20120075957 by De Bruijn (hereinafter DB).
Regarding claim 18, the Wakeland reference teaches the method of claim 16 with a plurality of speakers.
The Wakeland reference fails to teach an data indicating a layout of speakers.
However, in analogous art, the De Bruijn reference teaches:
receiving, by the user device, an instruction to locate the user device relative to a display associated with the user device (De Bruijn: pages 1-2, para 5, 15) in order to measure speaker performance and efficiently estimate speaker positions (DB: page 2, para 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the positioning of a recording device of DB into the method of outputting different audio to in order to measure speaker performance and efficiently estimate speaker positions (DB: page 2, para 15).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20130236032 by Wakeland et al in view of 20070230913 by Ichimura in further view of 9628933 by Boehm.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Wakeland teaches the method of claim 16.
The modified Wakeland fails to teach different audio channels between the first and second audio.
However, in analogous art, the Boehm reference teaches:
wherein the first alternative audio format different audio quality level comprises a different number of audio channels than the second alternative audio format (Boehm: col 1, lines 38-62) in order to rendering multi-channel audio across different speaker setups (Boehm: col. 1, lines 10-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the positioning of a speakers as taught by Boehm into the method of outputting different audio to in order to rendering multi-channel audio across different speaker setups (Boehm: col. 1, lines 10-40).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U. S. Patent Publication No. 20150195666 by Massey et al.
U. S. Patent Publication No. 20160174008 by Boehm.
U. S. Patent Publication No. 20150245092 by Butussi.
U. S. Patent Publication No. 20120237184 by Takeuchi.
U. S. Patent No. 7925611 by Bromley.
U. S. Patent No. Publication 20090150480 by Xia.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R BRUCKART whose telephone number is (571)272-3982. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH: 7-6p.
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. 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.
BENJAMIN R. BRUCKART
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights