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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groeschel: 20130170672 hereinafter Gro further in view of Wang: 20210151082 and further in view of Piel: 20240338114.
Regarding claim 1
Gro teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: under control of a computing system comprising one or more computer processors configured to execute specific instructions, obtaining an input audio comprising one or more audio channels, the input audio being an audio track of a video content item (Gro: ¶ 15, 64, etc.: system receives a main input audio signal and associated audio signal wherein the audio signals are associated with a movie, dvd video or other media bearing same);
obtaining an audio description (AD) narration (Gro: ¶ 64: such as an associated description track, such as a directors commentary which is overlaid upon the main audio based on metadata associated therewith), wherein the AD narration comprises a plurality of AD sections of narration of the video content item (Gro: ¶ 10, 11, 64; Fig 1A, 1B: such as commentary narrating aspects of a scene, the production thereof, etc. overlaid upon or among scenes of a movie),
wherein a first AD section and a second AD section of the plurality of AD sections respectively correspond to a first scene and a second scene of the input audio (Gro: ¶ 10, 11, 64, 99, 100: a first, second, etc. director commentary or other descriptive tracks respectively correspond to one or more particular first, second, etc. scenes in the movie);
normalizing (Gro: ¶ 11, 62, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, etc.: system performs leveling, normalization, etc. on audio tracks based on scene-wise metadata; the figure “shows an example of different programs without such leveling or dialog level normalization,” to which leveling or normalization is to be applied),
using a first loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the first scene, a second loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first normalized AD section with a first normalized loudness level (Gro: ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, etc.: such as by scaling a director commentary track with respect to a main audio scene level of one or more scenes of a production wherein the main audio scene level is also scaled; that is, consider the exemplary very loud scene which would have audio at a first loudness level greater than that of the loudness level of the commentary in a manner analogous to the louder and lower audio S1 and S2 respectively in figure 1a; Examiner is aware that the utility of Fig 1a in the specification does not address the scaling in this manner but the statement and figure serve to illustrate the manner in which such processing is accomplished, that is to arrive at loudness normalization in the form of a uniform audio by provision of producer, director, user, etc. desired scaling values to alter the general sound level of audio portions to generate at consistent audio, such that the program audio of the scene at the higher level, the S1 audio, etc. is scaled down, attenuated, etc. with respect to the commentary audio in the scene and/or the commentary level audio of the scene at the lower signal level, the S2 audio, is scaled up, normalized with respect to the louder signal, etc., and as exemplified by figure 3, etc.; in this way dissimilar scaling factors may be used to normalize first, second, etc. audio within a scene to uniform levels such that “the input signals are normalized,” wherein “the normalization can be applied either before or after the determination of the dominant signal, as the results will be the same,” such as to ensure that dialog values “of the input signals is/are set correctly and for both the main and associated signals to be at dialog level 31 before mixing,”);
normalizing, using a third loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the second scene, a fourth loudness level of the second AD section to generate a second normalized AD section with a second normalized loudness level (Gro: ¶ 11, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, 5A-C, etc.: such as by repeating the process to generate dissimilar scaling factors such as in a scene with audio similar to that of S3 and S4 wherein a second scene requires scaling factors different from that of a first scene and by which the dissimilar audio within a scene is normalized to uniform levels such that “the input signals are normalized,” wherein “the normalization can be applied either before or after the determination of the dominant signal, as the results will be the same” such as to ensure that dialog values “of the input signals is/are set correctly and for both the main and associated signals to be at dialog level 31 before mixing,”);
compressing, by a first computer processor of the one or more computer processors, a first audio channel of the one or more audio channels during the first scene based at least in part on the first normalized loudness level of the first normalized AD section to generate a first portion of a first compressed audio channel (Gro: ¶ 6, 59-62, etc.: such as by using a compression scheme on one or more audio channels, such as a first audio channel normalized as described supra, such as for communication of the data to additional devices , such as on a scene requiring the scaling generative of the first normalized AD section);
compressing, by a second computer processor of the one or more computer processors, the first audio channel of the one or more audio channels during the second scene based at least in part on the second normalized loudness level of the second normalized AD section to generate a second portion of the first compressed audio channel (Gro: ¶ 6, 59-62, etc.: such as by using a compression scheme on one or more audio channels, such as a first audio channel normalized as described supra, such as for communication of the data to additional devices , such as on a scene requiring the scaling generative of the second normalized AD section); and
mixing the first normalized AD section to the first compressed audio channel during the first scene and the second normalized AD section to the first compressed audio channel during the second scene to generate a first sound channel of an AD content, wherein the AD content comprises the video content item and provides narration of the video content item between the sections of dialogue (Gro: ¶ 59-64, 69, 70; Fig 3: such as by providing the individual audio channel comprising the directors commentary to a channel of a multi-channel audio codec, standard, etc. as discussed normalized in the manner the discussed with respect to the main audio such as for multi-channel output).
Gro describes mixing the main audio and commentary audio together such as for output but teaches and/or suggests the claimed subject matter in the manner discussed supra which teaches that the mixing occurring in a simultaneous, overlapping, manner over successive, etc. time periods. Gro does not explicitly teach the commentary occurring specifically between sections of dialogue of the main audio, wherein the first AD section and second AD section of the plurality of AD sections respectively correspond to a first scene and a second scene of the input audio such that using the Gro taught or suggested loudness levels associated with the one or more audio channels interspersed sequentially within the first scene generate a first normalized AD section with a first normalized loudness level. Additionally, Gro strongly suggests operating a plurality of processor modules to perform the claimed subject matter as represented in figure 3 but does not explicitly teach the Gro taught or suggested insertion, normalization, compression, mixing pipeline stages, module operations, etc. assigned to specific processors.
In a related field of endeavor Wang teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: under control of a computing system comprising one or more computer processors configured to execute specific instructions obtaining an input audio comprising one or more audio channels, the input audio being an audio track of a video content item (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 10, 52, 61, 62, etc.; Fig 1, 2, etc.: such as accessing audio tracks by operating memory modules upon one or more physical processors wherein the audio track is associated with a video recording, content item, etc.);
obtaining an audio description (AD), wherein the AD comprises a plurality of AD sections of the video content item (Wang: ¶ 86, 102-104; Fig 7: a dialog list comprising one or more translations of film dialog are input for creating an additional audio track wherein the in and out times for lines of dialog in one or more scenes are determined) between sections of dialogue of the input audio (Wang: ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107: system determines dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes for the purpose of inserting a “synthesized voice description … to provide additional information to a visually impaired viewer without interrupting the audio track that is associated with the video recording, typically by inserting the synthesized voice description into a segment of the audio track in which there is no dialog), a first AD section and a second AD section of the plurality of AD sections respectively corresponding to a first scene and a second scene of the input audio (Wang: ¶ 11, 48, 59; Fig 2: system replaces and/or inserts audio into one or more scenes of a program, movie, etc.);
compressing, by a computer processor of the one or more computer processors, a first audio channel of the one or more audio channels during the first scene based at least in part on a loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first portion of a first compressed audio channel (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress an audio track to a determined loudness level; such as by processor(s) 130); compressing, by a computer processor of the one or more computer processors, the first audio channel of the one or more audio channels during the second scene based at least in part on a loudness level of the second AD section to generate a second portion of the first compressed audio channel (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5, 6A, 6B: system operates to compress an audio track to a determined loudness levels such as upon subsequent audio portions of a media; such as by processor(s) 130); and
mixing the first and second AD sections to the first compressed audio channel during the first scenes and second scenes to generate a first sound channel of an AD content, wherein the AD content comprises the video content item and provides narration of the video content item between the sections of dialogue (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107: system mixes in or otherwise inserts a “synthesized voice description,” at dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes to provide information without interrupting the audio track that is associated with the video recording, typically by inserting the synthesized voice description into a segment of the audio track in which there is no dialog). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Gro system and method to compressed the various dialog audio segments and mix or otherwise insert compressed audio description segments between dialog segments in the manner taught or suggested by Wang and for at least the purpose of providing description information without interrupting distracting from the original dialog audio, audio track, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Gro in view of Wang strongly suggest but do not explicitly teach operating the modules, portions of the pipeline, etc. of the disclosed steps upon a plurality of processors, such as in parallel, upon plural cores, etc.
In a related field of endeavor Peil teaches a system and method for determining a processing path for audio processing (Peil: Abstract) comprising utilizing multiple processors for selective processing of particular audio (Peil: ¶ 11, 12, 25-27, 60-65; Fig 7; Claim 8: system comprises user specified processing paths to perform signal processing upon multiple processors, cores, DSPs, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a multiprocessor system such as that taught or suggested by Peil to conduction operations of the Gro in view of Wang processing pipeline upon a plurality of processors and for at least the purpose of providing timewise benefit to the processing and mixing of audio such as with decreased latency, in substantially real-time, etc. and in the manner claimed; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Gro in view of Wang in view of Peil teaches or suggest:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting a dynamic range of the first audio channel (Gro: ¶ 16-19, 60: such as by utilizing a dialnorm or other compression and/or dynamics adjusting processes such as spectral band replication, etc.); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 5: such as by compression of an audio track to a determined loudness level which adjusts the dynamic range over volume or gain; by re-sampling which necessarily adjusts a dynamic frequency range, etc.) prior to normalizing the second loudness level of the first AD section and the fourth loudness level of the second AD section Gro: ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, etc.: such as by performing normalization of the loudness levels of a particular second to be included in the output media); (Wang: ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107: system determines dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes for the purpose of interleaving audio in a scene at particular volume levels utilizing compression values to manage overall gain continuity); (Peil: such as by adapting processing a processing pipeline in a specific manner). Examiner considers the claim obvious to try to an average skilled practitioner in possession of Gro, Wang and Peil. Piel addresses the relevant problem of the sequencing of processing steps for audio signal processing and distributing same across a plurality of processors at a plurality of timings; there exist a finite number of potential and predictable solutions in this regard, signal processing steps including normalizing of portions may occur prior to, incident with, or after the normalizing of other distinct portions based thereon; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success such as by issuing relevant instructions therefrom to the multi-core processing pipeline of the system; as such the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3
Gro in view of Wang in view of Peil teaches or suggest:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein compressing the first audio channel during the first scene is based on a difference between the first normalized loudness level of the first normalized AD section and the first loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the first scene (Gro: Figs 2A, 2B: such as the generation of a normalized scene level of figure 2B based on processing the scene portions of figure 2A based on the differences therebetween), and wherein compressing the first audio channel during the second scene is based on a difference between the second normalized loudness level of the second normalized AD section (Gro: Figs 2A, 2B: such as by iteratively generating normalized processing of scene levels of figure 2B based on processing the scene portions of figure 2A based on the differences therebetween over the available or necessary to process scenes of a multi-scene media) and the third loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the second scene (Gro: Abstract; ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 20etc. Figs 1A, 1B, 5A-5C: the system normalizes the volume of sections, segments, portions, etc. of a media such that the media overall maintains a consistent sound levels using scale factors based on differences between segment volumes); (Wang; Abstract; ¶ 57, 74-77, etc.: system adjusts, compresses, etc. the level of a portion of audio to be consistent with prior, subsequent portions and to allow highlighted volume to a voiceover); (Peil: ¶ 11, 12, 25-27, 60-65, etc.; Fig 7; Claim 8: system operates to adapt an audio signal in keeping with a user specification thereof). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang and Piel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro, Wang, and/or Piel to the modified device of Gro, Wang, and Piel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Gro in view of Wang in view of Peil teaches or suggest:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
determining the difference between the first normalized loudness level of the first normalized AD section and the first loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the first scene (Gro: Figs 2A, 2B: such as by iteratively generating normalized processing of scene levels of figure 2B based on processing the scene portions of figure 2A based on the differences therebetween over the available or necessary to process scenes of a multi-scene media);
determining the difference between the second normalized loudness level of the second normalized AD section and the third loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the second scene (Gro: Figs 2A, 2B: such as by iteratively generating normalized processing of scene levels of figure 2B based on processing the scene portions of figure 2A based on the differences therebetween over the available or necessary to process scenes of a multi-scene media);
determining the difference between the first normalized loudness level of the first normalized AD section and the first loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the first scene to a first range of a plurality of ranges (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: system includes compression and frequency metadata characteristics for scaling, compressing, normalizing etc. particular frequency ranges of one or more audio tracks based on differences therebetween); (Wang: ¶ 34, 42, 65-67, 95, 101; Fig 6A, 6B: such as for determining properties of particular tracks, portions thereof such as for generating labels, metadata, or other specific characteristics thereof; such as for labelling specific ranges of frequencies, etc.);
determining the difference between the second normalized loudness level of the second normalized AD section and the third loudness level associated with the one or more audio channels during the second scene to a second range of the plurality of ranges (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: system includes compression and frequency metadata characteristics for scaling, compressing, normalizing etc. particular frequency ranges of one or more audio tracks based on differences therebetween); (Wang: ¶ 34, 42, 65-67, 95, 101; Fig 6A, 6B: such as for determining properties of particular tracks, portions thereof such as for generating labels, metadata, or other specific characteristics thereof; such as for labelling specific ranges of frequencies, etc.);
generating, based on the first range, a first parameter set for compressing the first audio channel during the first scene (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: parameters determined by a user of the system, or generated by codec to which tracks are to be compressed etc.); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress an audio track to a determined loudness level; such as by processor(s) 130); and generating, based on the second range, a second parameter set for compressing the first audio channel during the second scene (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: parameters determined by a user of the system, or generated by codec to which tracks are to be compressed etc.); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress an audio track to a determined loudness level; such as by processor(s) 130).
generating, based on the first range, a first parameter set for compressing the first audio channel during the first scene (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: such as for transmitting audio such as upon a selected codec); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: such as for determining an appropriate compression, data structure thereof for reducing saved track data);
generating, based on the second range, a second parameter set for compressing the first audio channel during the second scene (Gro: ¶ 11, 16, 25, 26, 31, 59-62: such as for transmitting audio such as upon a selected codec); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: such as for determining an appropriate compression, data structure thereof for reducing saved track data);
Gro in view of Wang in view of Peil does not explicitly teach classifying the data to resolve the parameters recited merely processing the data in such a way and the utility of classifying the audio tracks to determine particular characteristics of audio tracks however It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the base method and known technique of classifying audio tracks to determine parameters thereof as taught by Wang to improve the Gro in view of Wang in view of Peil system and method to select among the taught compression schemes for based on classified frequency ranges, volume ranges etc. such as for the purpose of managing headroom, file size for transmission, etc. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented such an improvement to the system without undue experimentation and in full expectation of predictable results. The claim is thus considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang and Piel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro, Wang, and/or Piel to the modified device of Gro, Wang, and Piel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Claims 5-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groeschel: 20130170672 hereinafter Gro further in view of Wang: 20210151082.
Regarding claim 5
Gro teaches:
A system for generating an audio description (AD) content, the system comprising: memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (Gro: ¶ 15, 38, 64 etc.; Fig 2: memory bearing coded instructions for operation in concert with a processor such as that of the figure for receiving a main input audio signal and associated audio signal wherein the audio signals are associated with a movie, dvd video or other media bearing same), cause the one or more processors to:
obtain an input audio comprising audio for a video content item (Gro: ¶ 15, 64, etc.: system receives a main input audio signal and associated audio signal wherein the audio signals are associated with a movie, dvd video or other media bearing same);
obtain an AD narration, wherein the AD narration comprises a plurality of AD sections, a first AD section of the plurality of AD sections corresponding to a first scene of the input audio (Gro: ¶ 10, 11, 64, 99, 100: such as an associated description track, such as a directors commentary which is overlaid upon the main audio based on metadata associated therewith and comprising a first, second, etc. director commentary narrating aspects of a scene, the production thereof, etc. overlaid upon or among scenes of a movie or other descriptive tracks respectively corresponding to one or more particular first, second, etc. scenes in the movie);
modify (Gro: ¶ 9-11, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, etc.: system performs leveling, volume control, etc. on audio tracks based on scene-wise metadata), using a loudness level associated with the first scene, a loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first modified AD section (Gro: ¶ 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 69, 96, etc.; 3, etc.: such as by scaling a director commentary track with respect to a main audio scene level of one or more scenes of a production);
modify, based at least in part on a loudness level of the first modified AD section, the first scene of the input audio to generate a first modified scene (Gro: ¶ 63, 71; Figs 1B, 5A-5C: volume adjusted of a particular track with respect to other tracks within a scene to composite a scene for output such as by mixing); and mix the first modified AD section and the first modified scene to generate a first AD content scene(Gro: ¶ 59-64, 69, 70; Fig 3: such as by providing the individual audio channel comprising the directors commentary to a channel of a multi-channel audio codec, standard, etc. as discussed normalized in the manner the discussed with respect to the main audio such as for multi-channel output).
Gro is thus considered to teach mixing of a main and associated signal in concert with scaling information such that “ the relative level of each input signal contributing to the mixed signal is controlled during mixing by scaling information contained in metadata,” (Gro: ¶ 9) and “scaling information for the main signal relative to the associated signal when they are mixed,” (id.) and a commentary audio implementation wherein the main audio signal of the movie is mixed with commentary audio as directed by metadata such that the “the main audio signal of the movie to be reduced, or attenuated, … so that the director's commentary can be properly understood over the main audio,” under direction of “metadata accompanying the additional associated audio signal, in which the metadata specifies exactly in what way and by how much the main signal should be attenuated.” (Gro: ¶ 10).
Gro describes mixing the main audio and commentary audio together such as for output but teaches and/or suggests the claimed subject matter in the manner discussed supra which teaches that the mixing occurring in a simultaneous, overlapping, manner over successive, etc. time periods. Gro does not explicitly teach the commentary occurring specifically between sections of dialogue of the main audio, wherein the first AD section and second AD section of the plurality of AD sections respectively correspond to a first scene and a second scene of the input audio such that using the Gro taught or suggested loudness levels associated with the one or more audio channels interspersed sequentially within the first scene generate a first normalized AD section with a first normalized loudness level.
In a related field of endeavor Wang teaches a computer-implemented system for generating an audio description (AD) content, the system comprising: memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory (Wang: Fig 1), wherein the computer- executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain an input audio comprising audio for a video content item (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 10, 52, 61, 62, etc.; Fig 1, 2, etc.: such as accessing audio tracks by operating memory modules upon one or more physical processors wherein the audio track is associated with a video recording, content item, etc.);
obtain an AD narration, wherein the AD narration comprises a plurality of AD sections, a first AD section of the plurality of AD sections corresponding to a first scene of the input audio (Wang: ¶ 86, 102-104, 107; Fig 7: a dialog list comprising one or more translations of film dialog are input for creating an additional audio track wherein the in and out times for lines of dialog in one or more scenes are determined; wherein the system determines dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes for the purpose of inserting a “synthesized voice description … to provide additional information to a visually impaired viewer without interrupting the audio track that is associated with the video recording, typically by inserting the synthesized voice description into a segment of the audio track in which there is no dialog);
modify, using a loudness level associated with the first scene, a loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first modified AD section (Wang: ¶ 63, 68, 69, 77, 86, 102-104, 107; Fig 2, 7: system operates scene wise to reduce a loudness level associated with the scene by adjusting the volume of the accessed audio track, 204-208; and adjust a volume level of the synthesized voice narration based on the adjusted volume of the overall scene and insert the synthesized audio based thereon)volume ;
modify, based at least in part on a loudness level of the first modified AD section, the first scene of the input audio to generate a first modified scene (Wang: ¶ 77, 78, 86, 102-104, 107; Fig 2, 7: such as by mixing together of the accessed and synthesized audio tracks and adjusting volume thereof over time , storing same; and
mix the first modified AD section and the first modified scene to generate a first AD content scene (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107, etc.; Fig 3, 4, 5, 7, etc.: system mixes in or otherwise inserts a “synthesized voice description,” at dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes to provide information without interrupting the audio track that is associated with the video recording, typically by inserting the synthesized voice description into a segment of the audio track in which there is no dialog).
Wang is thus considered to teach the interleaved video-audio as recited in the claim as Wang discloses “accessing an audio track that is associated with a video recording,” and “identifying a section of the accessed audio track,” as well as characteristics, etc. thereof; and operable for “reducing a volume level of the audio track in the identified section,” such that “an audio segment that includes a synthesized voice,” may be inserted into “the accessed audio segment into the identified section of the audio track,” (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 5, 19; Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Gro system and method for mixing a main and associated signal by determination of a scale factor and scaling the associated signal for mixing with the main signal into a mixed signal to utilize the Wang taught method for reducing the volume level of the main signal in an identified time slot and to thereby mix in a volume adjusted additional synthesized audio such as commentary audio into the time slot wherein the additional synthesized audio is inserted at a higher volume than that of the reduced volume main signal in the manner taught or suggested by Wang and for at least the purpose of providing description information without interrupting or distracting from the original dialog audio, audio track, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein a second AD section of the plurality of AD sections corresponds to a second scene of the input audio, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
modify, using a loudness level associated with the second scene, a loudness level of the second AD section to generate a second modified AD section; modify, based at least in part on a loudness level of the second modified AD section, the second scene of the input audio to generate a second modified scene (Gro: ¶ 11, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, 5A-C, etc.: such as by repeating the process to generate dissimilar scaling factors such as in a scene with audio similar to that of S3 and S4 wherein a second scene requires scaling factors different from that of a first scene and by which the dissimilar audio within a scene is normalized to uniform levels such that “the input signals are normalized,” wherein “the normalization can be applied either before or after the determination of the dominant signal, as the results will be the same” such as to ensure that dialog values “of the input signals is/are set correctly and for both the main and associated signals to be at dialog level 31 before mixing,”); (Wang: ¶ 11, 48, 59, 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 2, 5: system replaces and/or inserts audio into one or more scenes of a program, movie, etc. such as to control output volume of an audio track(s) with respect a determined loudness level; such as by processor(s) 130)); and mix the second modified AD section and the second modified scene to generate a second AD content scene (Gro: ¶ 59-64, 69, 70; Fig 3: such as by providing the individual audio channel comprising the directors commentary to a channel of a multi-channel audio codec, standard, etc. as discussed normalized in the manner the discussed with respect to the main audio such as for multi-channel output); (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107: system mixes in or otherwise inserts a “synthesized voice description,” at dialog in and out times for a plurality of scenes to provide information without interrupting the audio track that is associated with the video recording, typically by inserting the synthesized voice description into a segment of the audio track in which there is no dialog). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 6, wherein the input audio comprises a third scene between the first scene and the second scene, and wherein the third scene of the input audio is unmodified. The claimed subject matter is considered obvious as a matter of design choice on the part of a director, producer, or other creator of content; Gro in view of Wang discusses the relevant scope and content of the prior art necessary to accomplish the claim (please see figure 1B of Gro which illustrates compositing of scenes), design incentives such as abound in the video production industry would have prompted such decisions on the part of a director, producer, or other creator of content; such a modification as claimed are encompassed by Gro in view of Wang and amount to no more than known and predictable variations which could have been implemented without undue experimentation in full expectation of predictable results. The claim is thus considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: concatenate the first scene of the input audio and the third scene of the input audio Wang: Fig 1A, 1B: scenes are concatenated for output as part of generating a media). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein the input audio comprises one or more audio channels of the audio for the video content item (Gro: ¶ 59-64, 69, 70; Fig 2A, 2B, 3: plurality of scenes concatenated for output comprise at least an audio channel, AD channel, etc.); (Wang: ¶ 86, 103, 104, 107: system determines in and out times of audio for a plurality of scenes in concert with description audio corresponding to the scenes; said scenes concatenated for output as a media). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: boost the first AD content scene (Gro: ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, etc.: system operates to scale audio tracks under direction of a user thereof); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress or otherwise scale audio tracks to a determined loudness levels). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: insert the first modified AD section, according to a start time or an end time of the first scene, to a silent audio file to generate a normalized narration file (Gro: ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, etc.: system operable to normalize an audio file, narration file, etc.); (Wang: ¶ 86, 98, 102-104; Fig 7: system determines in and out times of audio and operates to add periods of silence therebetween such as for insertion of voice descriptions between dialog). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 11, wherein a duration of the normalized narration file equals a duration of the input audio (Wang: ¶ 86, 98, 102-104; Fig 7: such as for insertion of description therein). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: generate, based on an AD script, the AD narration (Wang: ¶ 39, 103-105: lektoring tracks the script dialog of a movie, such as by generation of a text therefrom to provide to a text to speech engine for generating a synthesized narration voice based on a parsed script of a media). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 13, wherein the AD script is generated by a machine learning (ML) model or a human operator (Wang: ¶ 39, 103-105: input dialog is parsed and converted to markup language the markup language is considered converted by a model or human). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 15
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 13, wherein the AD narration is generated using a computer synthesized speech voice (Wang: ¶ 39, 103-105: lektoring tracks the script dialog of a movie, generates a text therefrom to provide to a text to speech engine for generating a synthesized narration voice based on a parsed script of a media). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: determine one or more audio properties of the input audio; and split, based at least in part on the one or more audio properties of the input audio, the input audio into one or more audio channels (Gro: ¶ 23-26: multi-channel audio comprise metadata scale factors for a plurality of output channels; such as based on determined output channel functionality); (Wang: ¶ 37, 86, 103, 104, 107: multimedia stream split into dialog and non-dialog sections, tracks, etc. and synthetic voice over tracks inserted therein). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein modifying the loudness level of the first AD section comprises increasing or decreasing the loudness level of the first AD section based on the loudness level associated with the first scene (Gro: ¶ 3, 11, 13, 16, 62, 63, 69, 96, etc.; Fig 1A, 1B, 3, etc.: such as by scaling audio track(s) level(s) of one or more scenes of a production); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress audio track(s) to determined loudness levels; such as by processor(s) 130). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 18
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The system of claim 5, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: adjust a dynamic range of the first scene prior to modifying the first scene, wherein adjusting the dynamic range of the first scene comprises limiting the loudness level associated with the first scene to a predetermined loudness level (Gro: ¶ 6, 59-62, etc.: such as by using a compression scheme on one or more audio channels, such as a first audio channel normalized as described supra, such as for communication of the data to additional devices). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20
Gro in view of Wang teaches or suggest:
The computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein modifying the first scene of the input audio is based on a difference between the loudness level of the first modified AD section and the loudness level associated with the first scene (Gro: Figs 2A, 2B: such as the generation of a normalized scene level of figure 2B based on processing the scene portions of figure 2A based on the differences therebetween); (Wang: ¶ 80, 94, 95; Fig 1, 5: system operates to compress audio tracks to determined loudness levels to maintain listenability of scenes in the media; such as by processor(s) 130). The claim is considered obvious over Gro as modified by Wang as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gro and/or Wang to the modified device of Gro and Wang; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner rejection of claim 5 supra has been modified to respond to applicants arguings without adding any new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the prior art combination of Groeschel and Wang fail to teach or suggest at least the above recitations of Claim 5. As a preliminary matter Examiner agreed to further consider to Applicant’s argument’s in the Examiner Interview made of record 3/26/26 holding that while they appeared to obviate the arguments mandated further search and consideration; such as to properly compare the filed arguments with the teachings of the references and the prior art rejection. Having done so Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant argues particularly against the rejection of independent claim 5, and though claim 1 has substantially different scope, applies the same argument to independent claims 1 and 19 stating—“While Claims 1 and 19 differ in scope from Claim 5, each of Claims 1 and 19 includes certain features similar to those of Claim 5,” reproducing next the subject matter of claim 1, then “Thus, at least for reasons discussed during the interview and similar to those discussed above with reference to Claim 5, where applicable, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” Thus the only arguments are those asserted with respect to claim 5 regarding which applicant argues that:
“The Office Action cites Groeschel as purportedly disclosing "modify, using a loudness level associated with the first scene, a loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first modified AD section" and "modify, based at least in part on a loudness level of the first modified AD section, the first scene of the input audio to generate a first modified scene" as recited in Claim 5.
However, Groeschel merely discloses that "the sound level or dialog level of the input audio signals can be normalized prior to mixing by the scaling information provided by metadata." [0009], Groeschel. Cited portions of Groeschel are directed to high-level explanation of the need for dialog-level normalization to keep program sound levels consistent, and provide that "in order to maintain consistent sound levels of different programs, most modern audio signals include metadata, such as a dialog level, which is used to scale the audio signal." [0059] - [0062], Groeschel.
Such disclosure by Groeschel fails to teach or suggest the above-quoted elements of Claim 5. Wang fails to cure the deficiencies of Groeschel in at least this regard; the Office Action does not contend otherwise.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants attacks Groeschel individually rather than the prior art combination and in fact does not discuss the teachings of Wang beyond the statement that “Wang fails to cure the deficiencies of Groschel. Examiner is rarely persuaded by such piecemeal arguings. Nevertheless Applicant’s assertions that Groeschel “merely discloses that "the sound level or dialog level of the input audio signals can be normalized prior to mixing by the scaling information provided by metadata,” and that “Cited portions of Groeschel are directed to high-level explanation of the need for dialog-level normalization to keep program sound levels consistent,” do not alter the fact that Groeschel in view of Wang teaches or suggests the system operable to "modify, using a loudness level associated with the first scene, a loudness level of the first AD section to generate a first modified AD section," and "modify, based at least in part on a loudness level of the first modified AD section, the first scene of the input audio to generate a first modified scene" as recited in Claim 5. Groeschel teaches that “ the relative level of each input signal contributing to the mixed signal is controlled during mixing by scaling information contained in metadata,” (Gro: ¶ 9). In Groeschel the input signals comprise a main input signal; an associated audio signal such as a director commentary; and metadata—the metadata comprising “scaling information for the main signal relative to the associated signal when they are mixed,” (Gro: 9-11, etc.; Fig 3) and additional mixing metadata comprising “a metadata scale factor for the main signal,” and “ a metadata scale factor for the main signal, (Gro: ¶ 19; Fig 3). Further Wang enhances this type of mixing by considering and adjusting the extant volume level in a scene, time slot, etc. such as by “accessing an audio track that is associated with a video recording,” and “identifying a section of the accessed audio track,” as well as characteristics, etc. thereof; and operable for “reducing a volume level of the audio track in the identified section,” such that “an audio segment that includes a synthesized voice,” may be inserted into “the accessed audio segment into the identified section of the audio track, ” (Wang: Abstract; ¶ 5, 19; Fig 2). As such Examiner maintains the obviousness of obtaining, modifying, and mixing the recited input and narration audio in the manner claimed for at least the purpose of providing description information without interrupting or distracting from the original dialog audio, audio track, etc. As such Applicants arguments are not persuasive and claim 5 is not allowable. As Applicants further arguments depend materially from those made with respect to claim 5 they are similarly not persuasive and no claims currently stand allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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 (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights