DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amended submission filed on 3/3/2025.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered, for the 35 USC 101, the rejection have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, for the 35 USC 103 rejection, the arguments are either unpersuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that, if presented, were necessitated by the amendments to the Claims. Applicant argue in pg. 5 there is no mention of modification of a source audio channel in combination of cited art, however Neuhauser/Walker/Lambert in view Chebiyyam teaches modifying of the portion of source audio channel by temporal shifting the portion to encode data modify the audio channel, see para 0005 of Chebiyyam for instance. Applicant also argues in pg 5-6 that the cited prior art combination does not teach or suggest “for each modified portion of the modified audio channel, inserting at least one notch in the modified audio channel, the at least one notch identifying the modified portion of the modified audio channel”. That argument is also not persuasive. Walker discloses transforming audio from time domain to frequency domain, then encoding by adding data or otherwise modifying the transformed audio which reads on modification, additionally, it also discloses using notching or altering one or more frequency bands. It also suggests other related techniques modify the frequency distribution of the audio data in the transform domain to encode. These are disclosed in para 0055-0056. Additionally, in para 0054, Neuhauser in view of Walker appears to suggest amplitude modulation technique, such as notching or otherwise modifying brief portions of the signal, or by subjecting the envelope to longer term modifications. “Processing the audio to read the code can be achieved by detecting the transitions representing a notch or other modifications, or by accumulation or integration over a time period comparable to the duration of an encoded symbol, or by another suitable technique.” It is also obvious, that the purpose of notching is to identify, marking or other modification of time/frequency segments in audio channel. Additionally, as shown in fig. 3 of Lambert, it is obvious that notches could be seen in identifying certain frequency segments. Also see fig. 7 and 8, where notch positions are identified. Finally, in fig. 11, the flow chart also shows retrieve notch position info which would also read on identification. Therefore, the cited combination of prior art indeed discloses all the claimed features.
This action is Final.
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.
Claims 21, 26-27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuhauser(which refers to NPL R. Walker in paragraph 0054-0057), in view of Lambert, and furthermore in view of Chebiyyam.
Regarding claim 21, Neuhauser discloses: A method for encoding data in an audio channel, comprising: modifying portions of a source audio channel ([0054] modify the envelope of the audio signal, for example by notching or otherwise modifying brief portions of the signal, or by subjecting the envelope to longer term modifications. Processing the audio to read the code can be achieved by detecting the transitions representing a notch or other modifications, or by accumulation or integration over a time period comparable to the duration of an encoded symbol, or by another suitable technique.) Also see Walker [sect 4-7, pgs 9-13]
and for each modified portion of the modified audio channel, inserting at least one notch in the modified audio channel, the at least one notch identifying the modified portion of the modified audio channel. ([0055] Another category of techniques identified by Walker involves transforming the audio from the time domain to some transform domain, such as a frequency domain, and then encoding by adding data or otherwise modifying the transformed audio. The domain transformation can be carried out by a Fourier, DCT, Hadamard, Wavelet or other transformation, or by digital or analog filtering. Encoding can be achieved by adding a modulated carrier or other data (such as noise, noise-like data or other symbols in the transform domain) or by modifying the transformed audio, such as by notching or altering one or more frequency bands, bins or combinations of bins, or by combining these methods. [0056] Processing the audio to read the code is carried out by detecting such modifications using knowledge of predefined audio encoding parameters.) Also see [0044, identification/detection audio channel, detection of codes also discussed in fig. 5 & 6 and 0077-0079] Also see Walker [sect 4-7, pgs 9-13]
Neuhauser does not explicitly, but Lambert discloses:
wherein at least one of a time and a frequency of the at least one notch identifies a time or a frequency segment, respectively, of the modified audio channel. (FIG. 2 shows a plot of a sampled time domain signal in which data has been encoded using notch depth modulation. FIG. 3 shows a plot of the frequency spectrum of the time domain signal plotted in FIG. 2.) also see [col. 9, lines 1-28].)
Neuhauser and Lambert are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Neuhauser to combine the teaching of Lambert, because a need has long existed in the art of broadcast communications for a method and apparatus for encoding data on a signal that does not appreciably affect the integrity of the signal (Lambert, [background]).
Neuhauser in view of Lambert does not explicitly, but Chebyiyyam discloses:
by temporally shifting the portions ([0005] The encoder is also configured to determine whether to perform a first temporal-shift operation on the target channel at least based on the mismatch value and a coding mode to generate an adjusted target channel.)
Neuhauser, Lambert and Chebiyyam are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Neuhauser and Lambert to combine the teaching of Chebiyyam, because estimated amended shift value may correspond to a more accurate measure of temporal-similarity by searching around the second estimated interpolated shift value of the current frame and the final estimated shift value of the previous frame (Chebiyyam, [0044]).
Regarding claim 27, Neuhauser discloses: A system for encoding data in audio, comprising: at least one processor; a storage storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (see figs 13-14 system, processor, storage)
Neuhauser also discloses: and at least one audio transducer which the at least one processor is operatively connected to for playback of the modified audio channel. ([0046] speaker, television, a radio, a cable converter, a satellite television system, a game playing system, a VCR, a DVD player, a PUA, a portable media player, a hi-fi system, a home theater system, an audio reproduction system, a video reproduction system, a computer, a web appliance, and [0046] transducer.)
As for the rest of the elements, they are similarly recited as claim 1, therefore the rationale applied in rejection of claim 1 is equally applicable.
Regarding claim 26, Neuhauser in view of Lambert and Chebiyyam discloses: The method of claim 21,
Chebiyyam further discloses: wherein each of the portions is temporally shifted by a positive or a negative amount of time. ([0045] the encoder may set the final shift value of the current frame (e.g., the first frame) to indicate no temporal-shift, i.e., shift1=0, in response to determining that one of the estimated “tentative” or “interpolated” or “amended” shift value of the current frame is positive and the other of the estimated “tentative” or “interpolated” or “amended” or “final” estimated shift value of the previous frame (e.g., the frame preceding the first frame) is negative.)
The rationale for the combination already been provided earlier in claim 21.
Regarding claim 32, although different in statutory category from claim 26, they recite elements of the method of claim 26, as a system. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 26 is equally applicable to claim 32.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bird et al. US-5355161-A – discloses using notch filter to identify program segments in broadcasting. See Abstract for details.
Harrison, C., Xiao, R., & Hudson, S. (2012, October). Acoustic barcodes: passive, durable and inexpensive notched identification tags. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 563-568). – discloses methods or techniques for encoding unique identifiers, creating notched identification tags and acoustic bar codes. See fig. 2 and related description for details.
Healy, R. (2010). Digital audio watermarking for broadcast monitoring and content identification (Doctoral dissertation, National University of Ireland, Maynooth.). – discloses application of notch filter in development of watermarking scheme. See chap 6 for additional details.
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 Phillip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656