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 .
The drawings are objected to because they lack descriptive legends as required by 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 103
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Baldock US 2002/0067438 A1.
5. Consider claim 1. Yao teaches a broadcast receiving method, comprising: receiving an input from a user (col 3, line 1), as to a selection of a service (112); controlling, in response to the selection of the service by the user, one of a first and a second tuner, so to obtain service signals from the selected radio service and to provide audio data for reproduction (col 2, line 46), wherein the first (104) and the second tuner (105) are each configured to obtain, independently from each other, service signals from a service and to provide audio data for reproduction; predicting (col 4, line 25-26) a next service based on the selected service, wherein the prediction is based on information as to previous sequential selections; controlling the other one of the first and second tuner to obtain the service signals from the next radio service predicted by the predicting (col 4, lines 51-58); and receiving a further input from the user, as to a subsequent selection of a radio service, wherein if the subsequent selection corresponds to the prediction, the method further comprises stopping the provision of audio data for reproduction by the one of the first and the second tuner and controlling the other one of the first and second tuner to provide the audio data of predicted radio service for reproduction (see col 2, lines 58-64), and if the subsequent selection does not correspond to the prediction, the method further comprises controlling either the first or second tuner, so to obtain the service signals from the radio service indicated by the subsequent selection and to provide the audio data for reproduction (see col 3, lines 32-40), and wherein the method further comprises, in response to the subsequent selection of the service, updating the information as to previous sequential selections (col 4, lines 47-50). Although Yao teaches this in a video/audio content system, he fails to teach using this in a radio environment. However, such is well known in the radio art as taught by Baldock in his two-tuner predictive radio channel selecting system (see abstract). It would have been obvious to use the predictive system in a radio environment for driver safety.
6. Consider claim 2. Yao teaches (see col 4 lines 42-50 of Yao) wherein the predicting includes updating the information as to previous sequential selections by means of reinforcement learning.
7. Consider claim 5. Yao teaches wherein the predicting includes predicting the next radio service based on the selected radio service and a predetermined number of previously selected radio services (see col 2, lines 35-42).
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Baldock US 2002/0067438 A1 further in view of Aravamudan et al US 2010/0241625 A1.
9. Consider claim 4. Although Yao (col 4, lines 42-50) teaches a learned model for the sequential selecting, he fails to explicitly state that it is a neural network. However, in the same field of endeavor Aravamudan teaches such (0052). It would have been obvious before the effective date to substitute one model for another to allow for faster learning for channel switching thus increasing the value of the system.
10. Claims 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Baldock US 2002/0067438 A1 further in view of Slupe US 7369825 B2.
11. Consider claim 3. The combination of Yao and Baldock fail to teach using a table for predicting the selection of services. However, this is known in the art as taught by Slupe (see fig 4) who is from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use a table for aid in predicting the next radio station to help keep track during different traveling routes.
12. For what is called for in claims 6 and 7, see fig 4 of Slupe which reads on the claimed location by using latitude (56) and longitude (58) and service (program 60).
13. For what is called for in claim 9. Slupe teaches releasing the other one of the first and second tuner from obtaining the service signals from the next radio service predicted by the predictor after a predetermined interval (i.e. out of range see fig.4 and corresponding description) from the selection of the radio service from the user.
14. For what is called for in claim 10, see col 2, lines 15-18 of Slupe which reads on the reception quality below the threshold claimed. Note also, because of the and/or in the claim, the “detected stop of the vehicle’” is not be considered.
15. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Baldock US 2002/0067438 A1 further in view of Henning et al CN 101422036 A.
16. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yao and Baldock fail to teach that the next radio channel (service) could be based on the current time. However from the same field of endeavor Henning et al teaches such (…For example, it can monitor the actions of users, and based on monitoring the behavior employing multiple possible technology in a technology (e.g., the technical level, and based on current user behavior and/or current time and date relative to other technology preferably uses a technology…) It would have been obvious before the effective date to add the current time as another factor in the user’s selection preference thus enhancing its effectiveness.
17. Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Slupe US 7369825 B2.
18. Consider claim 11. Yao teaches all that is claimed as analyzed in the rejection of claim 1, with the exception of predicting the next service being because of signal loss. However, Slupe from the same field of endeavor teaches such (i.e. out of range see fig.4 and corresponding description). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Slupe in Yao to allow for driver’s safety and fast channel switching when listening to the radio. For claim 19 see processor 132 and memory 134 of Yao.
19. Regarding claim 12. Yao teaches (see col 4 lines 42-50 of Yao) wherein the predicting includes updating the information as to previous sequential selections by means of reinforcement learning.
20. For what is called for in claim 13, see Slupe’s table in fig. 4.
21. Regarding claim 15. Yao teaches wherein the predicting includes predicting the next radio service based on the selected radio service and a predetermined number of previously selected radio services (see col 2, lines 35-42).
22. For what is called for in claims 16 and 17, see fig 4 of Slupe which read on the claimed location by using latitude (56) and longitude (58) and service (program 60).
23. For what is called for in claim 19, see processor 132 and memory 134 of Yao.
24. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Slupe US 7369825 B2 further in view of Aravamudan et al US 2010/0241625 A1.
25. Consider claim 14. Although Yao (col 4, lnes 42-50) teaches a learned model for the sequential selecting, he fails to explicitly state that it is a neural network. However, in the same field of endeavor Aravamudan teaches such (0052). It would have been obvious before the effective date to substitute one model for another to allow for faster learning.
26. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 8739196 B2 in view of Slupe US 7369825 B2 further in view of Henning et al CN 101422036 A.
27. Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yao and Slupe fail to teach that the next radio channel (service) could be based on the current time. However from the same field of endeavor Henning et al teaches such (…For example, it can monitor the actions of users, and based on monitoring the behavior employing multiple possible technology in a technology (e.g., the technical level, and based on current user behavior and/or current time and date relative to other technology preferably uses a technology…) It would have been obvious before the effective date to add the current time as another factor in the user’s selection preference thus enhancing its effectiveness.
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
29. US 20090055870 A1 Horibe teaches a digital broadcast receiving apparatus that utilizes an unused tuner effectively to shorten channel selection time is disclosed. The apparatus is equipped with plural tuners that receive digital broadcast waves; a processing unit capable of processing at least two demodulated by the tuner; a service information acquiring unit that extracts service information from the processing unit; a data contents acquiring unit that caches data contents; an audio and visual output control unit capable of processing plural audio and visual data simultaneously or alternately by switching; and a channel selection control unit that predicts a channel that the user is likely to select next time and preliminarily performs predicted channel selection process using a tuner currently not selected.
29. US 8611285 B2 Henning teaches receiving video data corresponding to one of the channels from the plurality of channels that is currently selected by the user and driving a display in accordance with the video data corresponding to the currently selected channel, and predicting which one of the remaining channels from the plurality of channels that the user may next select. Video data corresponding to the predicted channel is received and buffered to improve switching time from the currently selected channel to the predicted next channel.
30. US 8566469 B2 Jutzi teaches using two tuners which receives a selection to change to a different channel, streaming data associated with the different channel from a source to a buffer at a destination, predicting a next channel selection based on the different channel, and streaming data associated with the predicted next channel selection from the source to another buffer at the destination.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 6am to 230pm and Fri from 6am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner AU 2646