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 .
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “identify, based on the filtering instruction, a filtering content in an audio track of a content to be presented on the media device”. This claim limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (for example, the filtering instruction can be a list of unwanted words, a user can identify the list of those unwanted words in the user’s mind). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally filter out the filtering content in the audio track of the content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a storage module coupled to a processor to perform the identify function, filter out the filtering content in the audio track of the content; and present the filtered content on the media device as additional elements. The storing module and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identify a filtering content in an audio track of a content to be presented on the media device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The steps of “filter out the filtering content in the audio track of the content; and present the filtered content on the media device” are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a storage module and processor to perform the identify step and the two extra-solution activities amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8-10 which directly or indirectly depend on claim 1 are not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 1 since they also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 recite similar limitations as that of independent claim 1 and is not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 1 since it also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 12, 14 and 16 which directly or indirectly depend on claim 11 are not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 1 since they also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 17 recite similar limitations as that of independent claim 1 and is not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 1 since it also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 18 and 20 which directly or indirectly depend on claim 17 are not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 17 since they also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mountain (US Patent 8904420).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 17: Mountain teaches a computer system comprising: a storage module (see hard disk drive (HDD) 210 in fig. 2; col 7 lines 24-37); and at least one computer processor which can execute programs/ instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium (see DSP 214 and main processing core unit 204 in fig. 2 ); each coupled to the storage module and configured to: receive a filtering instruction for a media device (see fig. 2, the memory receives a list of relevant words either by user selected language or by a manual user input , see column 6 line 30 – column 6 line 47 ) ; identify, based on the filtering instruction, a filtering content in an audio track of a content to be presented on the media device (DSP 214 identifies timestamps of the unwanted words , see column 5 line 39 – column 6 line 47); filter out the filtering content in the audio track of the content ( CPU 205 mutes the unwanted words based on the timestamps of the unwanted words, see col 7 lines 1-23); and present the filtered content on the media device (the filtered content is presented on the display 215, see col 7 lines 1-49).
Regarding claim 2, Mountain teaches the processor is configured to receive a selection of the filtering content from a predefined list of filtering contents (see Column 6 line 30-47).
Regarding claim 10, Mountain teaches the filtering content comprises a word, a phrase, or a sentence (see column 6 lines 16-47 and claim 1 of Mountain).
Independent method claim 11 recite similar limitations as that of independent claims 1 and 17, Mountain teaches all claim limitations recited in claim 11 (see rejection of claims 1 and 17).
Regarding claim 12, Mountain teaches receiving a selection of the filtering content from a predefined list of filtering contents (see Column 6 line 30-47).
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 3, 5, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountain (US Patent 8904420) in view of Ditzik (US Patent 6167376).
Regarding claim 3, Mountain teaches the processor is further configured to identify some audio filtering content in the audio track by voice recognition technique (col 6 lines 16-29). Maoutain does not mention that the voice recognition technique used to identify the filtering instructions in the audio track uses audio fingerprint to aid in the identifying step. However, using audio fingerprint to identify audio content is well known in the art as evidenced by Ditzik (US Patent 6167376, see column 3 line 19-column 4 line 17, note that the feature vectors extracted by the voice recognition unit are audio fingerprints). Thus it would have been obvious for one skill in the art that the voice recognition unit of Mountain could have used audio fingerprint to aid in identifying the unwanted media content since it is just one of the many well known ways to identify audio contents effectively.
Dependent claim 13 recites similar limitations as that of claim 3 and thus the device of Moutain as modified by Ditzik meets the limitation for the similar reason as that of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Note the discussion of the rejection of claim 3, the voice recognition system of the device of Mountain as modified by Ditzik explicitly mention that the filtering instruction can be entered by a user manually (see column 6 lines 30-47 of Mountain), but does not mention that the filtering instruction can be entered by a user’s voice input. However, Ditzik (US Patent 6167376) teaches it is well known in the art that a user can provide a voice input which can be captured by a microphone and processed by a voice recognition system (see column 3 line 19-column 4 line 17). Thus it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Ditzik to modify the system of Mountain so that users can have an additional option to enter user’s command effectively. Note the discussion of the rejection of claim 3, the voice recognition system of the device of Mountain as modified by Ditzik would have had used audio fingerprint to identify the filtering content in the audio track of the content.
Dependent claims 15 and 19 recite similar limitations as that of claim 5 and thus the device of Moutain as modified by Ditzik meets the limitation for the similar reason as that of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Claims 4, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountain (US Patent 8904420) in view of Candelore et al (US PGPub 2011/0093882).
Regarding claim 4, Mountain teaches identify the filtering content in the audio track of the content based on timestamp (see col. 5 lines 39-63). Mountain does not mention at least one processor is further configured to: identify the filtering content in captioning data of the content based on the text input; and identify the filtering content in the audio track of the content based on timestamp correspondence between the captioning data and the audio track. Although Mountain doesn’t explicitly disclose that the user can use text input, however it is inherent as Mountain discloses a user can manually input words into the system (see column 6 lines 30-47). Words inputted manually are inherently text hence the user input is inherently a text input. Furthermore, Candelore et al (US 2011/0093882) teaches that unwanted captioning data can be filtered out as well as those unwanted audio data using well known technique (see fig. 4, paragraph 0037 and 0048). Thus it would have been obvious that any unwanted caption data in the audio/video stream of the A/V system of Mountain could have been removed using the teaching of Candelore so that viewers can be prevented from not only hearing unwanted audio data but also seeing the unwanted texts on the display.
Dependent claims 14 and 18 recite similar limitations as that of claim 4 and thus the device of Moutain as modified by Candelore meets the limitation for the similar reason as that of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Claims 6-8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountain (US Patent 8904420) in view of Ditzik (US Patent 6167376) and further in view of Candelore et al (US PGPub 20110093882).
Regarding claim 6, note the discussion of the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5, Mountain as modified by Ditzik (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 5) and further modified by Candelore et al (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 4) meets all claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, note the discussion of the rejection of claims 1 and 4 and 5, , Mountain as modified by Ditzik (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 5) and further modified by Candelore et al (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 4) meets all claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, note the discussion of the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5, Mountain as modified by Ditzik (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 5) and further modified by Candelore et al (for the same reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 4) meets all claim limitations.
Dependent claims 16 and 20 recite similar limitations as that of claim 6 and thus the device of Moutain as modified by Ditzik and Candelore meets the limitations for the similar reason as that of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountain (US Patent 8904420) in view of Shoemake et al (US 20150070516).
Regarding claim 9, Mountain does not teach identify an audience within a vicinity of the media device and determine the filtering content for the identified audience based on a content filtering rule. However, Shoemake et al (US 20150070516) teaches it is well known in the art to provide capability to identify an audience within a vicinity of the media device and determine the filtering content for the identified audience based on a content filtering rule (see paragraph 0127). Thus it would have been obvious for one skill in the art to apply the teaching of Shoemake to the device of Mountain so that certain audiences would be prevented to be exposed to inappropriate media presentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner VIVIAN CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7848. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am--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.
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.
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695