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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/03/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-14,16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbeke et al (US 2022/0109705 A1) in view of Green et al (US 2009/0016497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Verbeke et al disclose a method for providing audio data of a videoconference (Verbeke et al; Para [0048]), said method being implemented by a device and comprising: receiving data measured by at least one non-audio sensor (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029]); detecting during the videoconference at least one activity based on the received data (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029][0063][0075]; determine driver state/activity/context based on sensor data); and creating second audio data representative of the at least one detected activity (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]vocalized driver state and context), but do not expressly disclose said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during the videoconference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during telephony services (Green et al; Fig 3; mixer of audio 311 captured from user and audio message from message store 326). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio during videoconference taught by Verbeke. Verbeke discloses in Para [0044] that its services can be used for teleconference and telephony services. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 1 comprising sensing said measured data by said at least one sensor based on which said at least one activity is detected (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029] [0063] [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 1 wherein said second audio data comprise at least one audio message in speech synthesis (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose comprising mixing said first audio data and said second audio data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising mixing said first audio data and said second audio data (Green et al; Fig 3; mixer of audio 311 captured from user and audio message from message store 326). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 4 wherein said creating said second audio data representative of said activity is immediately consecutive to the detection of this activity (Verna et al; Fig 5; step 430) (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]); but do not expressly disclose and wherein said mixing of said first audio data and said second audio data is immediately consecutive to said creating the second audio data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method wherein said mixing of said first audio data and said second audio data is immediately consecutive to said creating the second audio data (Green et al; Para [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Verbeke et al disclose a device for providing audio data of a videoconference, said device comprising: a processor (Verbeke et al; Para [0021][0088]); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the processor configure the device to (Verbeke et al; Para [0021][0088]): receive data measured by at least one non-audio sensor (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029]); detect during the videoconference at least one activity based on the received data (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029][0063][0075]; determine driver state/activity/context based on sensor data); and create second audio data representative of the at least one detected activity (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]vocalized driver state and context), but do not expressly disclose said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during videoconference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during conference (Green et al; Fig 3; mixer of audio 311 captured from user and audio message from message store 326). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio during videoconference taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Verbeke et al disclose a videoconferencing system comprising: at least one non-audio sensor, which senses measured data (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029]); and a device for providing audio data, which comprises: a processor (Verbeke et al; Para [0021][0088]); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the processor configure the device to (Verbeke et al; Para [0021][0088]): receive data measured by the at least one non-audio sensor (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029][0063][0075]; determine driver state/activity/context based on sensor data); detect during a videoconference at least one activity based on the received data (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029]); and create second audio data representative of the at least one detected activity (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]vocalized driver state and context), but do not expressly disclose at least one capturing device configured to capture first audio data; said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with the first audio data captured during the videoconference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising at least one capturing device configured to capture first audio data (Green et al; Fig 3; audio input 311 from a user microphone); said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first captured audio data captured during conference call (Green et al; Fig 3; mixer of audio 311 captured from user and audio message from message store 326). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio during videoconference taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the system of claim 12, but do not expressly disclose comprising at least one reproduction device configured to communicate with said device for providing audio data and to reproduce audio data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising at least one reproduction device configured to communicate with said device for providing audio data and to reproduce audio data (Green et al; Fig 3; device 310; Para [0074] recorded message played with call at far end device 310 interpreted as reproduction device). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the system of claim 12, wherein said at least one non-audio sensor comprises a sensor from among the following: a video camera; a network probe; a pressure sensor; a temperature sensor; a depth sensor; or a thermal camera (Verbeke et al; Para [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the system of claim 12, wherein said system is a videoconferencing system (Verbeke et al; Para [0044][0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Verbeke et al disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement a method comprising (Verbeke et al; Para [0021][0088]): receiving data measured by at least one non-audio sensor (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029]); detecting during a videoconference at least one activity based on the received data (Verbeke et al; Para [0025]-[0029][0063][0075]; determine driver state/activity/context based on sensor data); and creating second audio data representative of the at least one detected activity (Verbeke et al; Para [0045][0063]vocalized driver state and context), but do not expressly disclose said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during the videoconference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Green et al disclose a method comprising said second audio data being adapted to be mixed with first audio data captured during a conference call (Green et al; Fig 3; mixer of audio 311 captured from user and audio message from message store 326). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Green et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio during videoconference taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to exercise greater control over the content (Green et al; Para [0004]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbeke et al (US 2022/0109705 A1) in view of Green et al (US 2009/0016497 A1) and further in view of Davis et al (US 2020/0177994 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein said mixing of said first audio data and said second audio data is performed synchronously. However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis et al disclose a method wherein said mixing of said first audio data and said second audio data is performed synchronously (Davis et al; Fig 3; step 12; synchronizing audio before mixing; Para [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the synchronization taught by Davis et al to synchronize the audio before the mix of the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verna. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance audio quality in a manner that is both computationally inexpensive (Davis et al; Para [0007]).
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbeke et al (US 2022/0109705 A1) in view of Green et al (US 2009/0016497 A1) and further in view of Clark et al (US 2020/0413212 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the mixed audio data comprise several audio channels. However, in the same field of endeavor, Clark et al disclose a method wherein the mixed audio data comprise several audio channels (Clark et al; Fig 2; Para [0026]; [0044]; notification mixer 209 mixes stereo signals interpreted as several audio channels with the notification message). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Clark et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verna. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a flexible approach to encode and mix multiple audio signals into a mixed stream (Clark et al; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the creating said second audio data is performed as a function of at least one user parameter of a user of a reproduction device that is a recipient of the mixed audio data, and wherein said several audio channels are respectively obtained as a function of different user parameters. However, in the same field of endeavor, Clark et al disclose a method wherein the creating said second audio data is performed as a function of at least one user parameter of a user of a reproduction device that is a recipient of the mixed audio data (Clark et al; Fig 2; Para [0026]; [0044]; gain interpreted as parameter), and wherein said several audio channels are respectively obtained as a function of different user parameters (Clark et al; Fig 2; Para [0026]; [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the mixer taught by Clark et al to mix the captured and synthesized audio taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a flexible approach to encode and mix multiple audio signals into a mixed stream (Clark et al; Para [0004]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbeke et al (US 2022/0109705 A1) in view of Green et al (US 2009/0016497 A1) and further in view of Asthana et al (US 2007/0143103 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the creating said second audio data is performed as a function of at least one user parameter of a user of a reproduction device that is a recipient of the mixed audio data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Asthana et al disclose a method wherein the creating said second audio data is performed as a function of at least one user parameter of a user of a reproduction device that is a recipient of the mixed audio data (Asthana et al; Para [0066]-[0068]; translation audio data based on language selection from secondary endpoint). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the second audio determination taught by Asthana et al as context audio determination in the method taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to ensure accurate communications (Asthana et al; Para [0046]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbeke et al (US 2022/0109705 A1) in view of Green et al (US 2009/0016497 A1) and further in view of Lord et al (US 2013/0144603 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Verbeke et al in view of Green et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose comprising identifying at least one person associated with said at least one detected activity, said second audio data being created based on a result of said identifying. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lord et al disclose a method comprising identifying at least one person associated with said at least one detected activity (Lord et al; Para [0044]), said second audio data being created based on a result of said identifying (Lord et al; Para [0028][0044]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the context identification taught by Lord et al as context identification in the device taught by Verbeke. The motivation to do so would have been to engage in a more productive conversation (Lord et al; Para [0017]).
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 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 KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights