DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 10/3/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. The Amendment filed 10/3/2025 has been entered and fully considered. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, those arguments are found persuasive and that rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, those arguments are moot in view of the new rejection based on U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20150310188 (Ford et al., hereinafter “Ford”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 3-10, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20140325233 (Carlson et al., hereinafter “Carl”) in view of U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20150310188 (Ford et al., hereinafter “Ford”) and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20080222419 (Tewfik et al., hereinafter “Tew”).
With regard to Claim 1, Carl describes:
“A method comprising:
receiving, by an application [[container]] executable [[within a browser]] on a client device coupled to a computer network, a transmission over the computer network; (Paragraph 73 describes that a data filed is received by a device.)
modifying, via a watermark engine in the application [[container and based on intercepting the audio data]], the audio data to add data based at least on the application, the addition of the data being done before output of the audio data [[as a real-time streaming audio data stream received from the computer network]] by the client device, and the added data configured to identify presence of the audio data within an audio recording; and (Paragraphs 67 and 97 describes that the data file is modified to include a watermark, which identifies the presence of the audio data within an audio recording.)
providing, by the application [[container]], the modified audio data to a component of the client device to output the modified audio data instead of the audio data received from the application.” (Paragraph 137 describes that the watermarked audio data is transmitted to another node/device.)
Carl does not explicitly describe use of a browser, that the application is an “application container,” “intercepting, by the application container and based on detecting the transmission comprises audio data from an application executable within the application container and accessed by the browser, the audio data,” the audio data is “a real-time streaming audio data stream received from the computer network,” or “wherein the added data is further configured to include identification information relating to context in which the audio data is delivered that allows the data to be identified by the context.”
However, Ford describes a system where audio and video data can be watermarked over a network. Paragraph 79 describes that the system works with multimedia content including audio and video.
Ford describes:
use of a browser, (Paragraph 61 describes that the system may be accessed through a device over a browser.)
that the application is an “application container,” (Paragraph 69 of Ford describes that application containers may be used to process, among other things, audio watermarks.)
the audio data is “a real-time streaming audio data stream received from the computer network,” and (Paragraph 263 describes that the system acts in real time to provide the watermarked content to a user.)
“wherein the added data is further configured to include identification information relating to context in which the audio data is delivered that allows the data to be identified by the context.” (Paragraph 190 describes that the information in the watermark can include the name of the user accessing the content.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the watermarking steps as described by Ford into the system of Carl to provide a system for sharing content while preserving the copyrights of the content owners, as describes in paragraph 67 of Ford.
Carl in view of Ford does not explicitly describe “intercepting, by the application container and based on detecting the transmission comprises audio data from an application executable within the application container and accessed by the browser, the audio data.”
However, paragraph 40 of Tew describes an interception layer that intercepts an audio signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interception layer as described by Tew into the system of Carl in view of Ford to control the audio signal before it reaches the application, as described in paragraph 33 of Tew.
With respect to Claim 2, Carl describes “providing, by the application container access to a plurality of applications via the application container, the plurality of applications hosted on one or more remote computing devices.” Figure 1B shows remote devices 12 and 18 (nodes) which host applications.
With respect to Claim 4, Carl describes “receiving, by the application container, audio data from a remote computing device hosting the application.” Figure 1B shows that nodes 12 and 18 can receive data from remote source 16.
With respect to Claim 5, Carl describes “receiving, by the application container, audio data as part of an audio data stream from a remote computing device.” Figure 1B shows that nodes 12 and 18 can receive data from remote source 16.
With respect to Claim 6, Carl describes “the component comprises an audio output device of the client device.” Paragraph 40 describes that remote source 16 provides a data file (which may be an audio file) to nodes 12 and 18.
With respect to Claim 7, Carl describes “the added data comprises a watermark configured to be inaudible by a human and recordable by an audio recording device.” Paragraph 145 describes that the audio watermarks added to the data files may ne inaudible watermarks.
With respect to Claim 8, Carl describes “determining, by the client device, to add the data to the audio data based at least on a profile of the application.” Paragraph 129 describes that the watermark is embedded according to a permutation key (cited as “based on at least a profile of the application.”)
With respect to Claims 9, 10, and 12-15, client device Claim 9 and method Claim 1 are related as a client device programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed client device function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 9, 10, and 12-15 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1, 2, and 4-7.
With respect to Claims 17-19, system Claim 17 and method Claim 1 are
related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 17-19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1, 5, and 7.
With respect to Claims 21, 23, and 24, Carl in view of Ford does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Tew describes “the identification information includes one or more of: information about the source of the audio data, copyright information, information about a user, location information, context information, and device information.” Paragraph 102 of Tew describes that watermarks include location information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the location information as described by Tew into the system of Carl in view of Ford to define the watermark location, as described in paragraph 102 of Tew.
6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Carl in view of Ford and Tew and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,905,233 (Thagadur et al., hereinafter “Tha”) and “Digital Audio Watermarking Based on Holographic Nonlinear Limiter” (Chen et al., hereinafter “Chen”).
With respect to Claim 22, Carl in view of Ford and Tew does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Tha describes “the added data comprises a [[holographic]] watermark that can be reconstructed from a small segment of the audio data.” Column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 6 of Tha describes that watermarks are only included in a small part of the original content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the small watermark as described by Tha into the system of Carl in view of Ford and Tew to allow for redundant watermarks throughout the content, as described in column 6, lines 1-6 of Tha.
Carl in view of Ford, Tew, and Tha does not explicitly describe that a holographic watermark is included in audio data. However, Chen describes a method for adding holographic watermarks to audio data (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the holographic watermark as described by Chen into the system of Carl in view of Ford, Tew, and Tha to improve the robustness against common signal attacks, as described in the abstract of Chen.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,730 (Carlson et al.) also describes watermarking audio signals.
8. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656