DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 12/10/2025. Claim 17 is amended. Claims 1-17 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been fully considered but are not persuasive regarding the art rejections of record. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the combination of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt, and not Robinson, Charoenruengkit, or Schmidt, singularly, is used to teach the limitations as claimed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). And as the combination of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt reasonably teaches the limitations as claimed, the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are the extracting unit, analyzing unit, determination unit, and the generating unit of claim 15. Because the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites extracting unit, analyzing unit, determination unit, and generating unit claim limitations, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1, 3-7 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (of record) in view of Charoenruengkit (of record) and Schmidt (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-17, Robinson discloses a method (and a terminal as in claim 15) of audio processing in a terminal device (see Robinson, at least at Figs. 1-3, and related text), the method comprising:
receiving a decoded broadcast feed (see Robinson, at least at [0009], [0012], [0019], [0036], [0054]-[0064], [0069], [0072]-[0074], and other related text), the decoded broadcast feed including a first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0009], [0012], [0019]-[0020], [0036], [0054]-[0064], [0069], [0072]-[0074], and other related text) ;
receiving content relating to the broadcast feed (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0019]-[0020], [0072]-[0074], [0078], and other related text), the content comprising a second audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0019]-[0020], [0072]-[0074], and other related text);
extracting level-related information from the decoded broadcast feed (see Robinson, at least at [0031], [0040], [0066], [0069], and other related text) wherein the level-related information is embedded in the decoded broadcast feed and enables to obtain an indication of an original audio level of the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0031], [0040], [0066], [0069], and other related text);
analyzing the first audio track for determining an actual audio level of the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0096]-[0098], and other related text);
determining a gain factor based on the actual audio level and the original audio level (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0096]-[0098], and other related text); and
generating output by the terminal device based on the first audio track, the second audio track, and the gain factor (i.e., the output signal, see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0096]-[0098], and other related text).
Robinson does not specifically disclose the method of audio processing being in an HbbTV terminal device; or
generating a third audio track for output by the HbbTV terminal device based on the first audio track, the second audio track, and the gain factor.
In an analogous art relating to a system for audio processing, Charoenruengkit discloses generating a third audio track for output by a terminal device based on a first audio, the second audio, and a gain factor (see Charoenruengkit, at least at [0039]-[0041], Fig. 3, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson to include the limitations as taught by Charoenruengkit for the advantage of more efficiently controlling more audio and allowing for more diverse output options.
Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit does not specifically disclose the method of audio processing being in an HbbTV terminal device.
In an analogous art relating to a system for processing audio, Schmidt discloses a method of audio processing being in an HbbTV terminal device (see Schmidt, at least at [0047], [0053], [0088], [0108], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit to include the limitations as taught by Schmidt for the advantage of more efficiently controlling more diverse types of audio.
Regarding claim 3, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein the level-related information is indicative of the original audio level of the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0031], [0040], [0066], [0069], and other related text).
Regarding claim 4, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein analyzing the first audio track involves analyzing audio samples of the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0005], [0033], [0070], [0118], and other related text).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein analyzing the first audio track involves applying a level metering algorithm to the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0088], and other related text).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein determining the gain factor involves comparing the original audio level and the actual audio level to derive the gain factor (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0028], [0096]-[0098], and other related text).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein generating the third audio track involves:
adjusting the audio level of the second audio track based on the gain factor (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0096]-[0098], and other related text); and
mixing the first audio track and the level adjusted second audio track (see Charoenruengkit, at least at [0039]-[0041], Fig. 3, and other related text).
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (of record) in view of Charoenruengkit (of record) and Schmidt (of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cremer (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt does not specifically disclose wherein extracting the level-related information from the decoded broadcast feed involves:
identifying a digital watermark in the decoded broadcast feed; and
analyzing the digital watermark for deriving the level-related information.
In an analogous art relating to a system for processing audio, Cremer discloses extracting level-related information from a feed involves identifying a digital watermark in the feed (see Cremer, at least at [0043], [0063]-[0066], and other related text); and
analyzing the digital watermark for deriving the level-related information (see Cremer, at least at [0043], [0063]-[0066], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt to include the limitations as taught by Cremer for the advantage of more efficiently providing information using more secure methods.
Regarding claim 8, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt, and further in view of Cremer discloses wherein the extracting the level-related information and the analyzing the first audio track are performed for each of a plurality of consecutive time portions (see Cremer, at least at [0034]-[0036], [0043], [0063]-[0067], and other related text); and/or
wherein, if the level-related information is extracted from the decoded broadcast feed in a given time portion, the first audio track is analyzed in the same given time portion (see Cremer, averag at least at [0034]-[0036], [0043], [0063]-[0067], and other related text).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt, and further in view of Cremer discloses wherein the gain factor is determined in the given time portion (see Cremer, at least at [0034]-[0036], [0043], [0063]-[0067], and other related text) and wherein the gain factor is used for mixing the first audio track and the level adjusted second audio track (see Charoenruengkit, at least at [0039]-[0041], Fig. 3, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt to include the limitations as taught by Cremer for the advantage of providing more diverse methods of controlling audio levels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (of record) in view of Charoenruengkit (of record) and Schmidt (of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smirnov (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt discloses wherein the previous gain factors are determined by comparing the original audio level and the actual audio level of respective previous time portions of the first audio track (see Robinson, at least at [0012], [0096]-[0098], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose wherein determining the gain factor involves determining a current gain factor by calculating a sliding average over a predefined number of previous gain factors.
In an analogous art relating to a system for processing audio, Smirnov discloses determining a gain factor involves determining a current gain factor by calculating a sliding average over a predefined number of previous gain factors (see Smirnov, at least at [0057]-[0058], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt to include the limitations as taught by Smirnov for the advantage of providing more diverse methods of controlling audio levels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (of record) in view of Charoenruengkit (of record) and Schmidt (of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panter (of record).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt does not specifically disclose synchronizing the first and second audio tracks based on time respective stamps imprinted on the broadcast feed and the second audio track.
In an analogous art relating to a system for processing audio, Panter discloses synchronizing first and second audio tracks based on time respective stamps imprinted on a content and a second audio track (see Panter, at least at col 3, lines 16-50, col 5, lines 5-29, col 7, lines 45-58, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Robinson in view of Charoenruengkit and Schmidt to include the limitations as taught by Panter for the advantage of providing more diverse methods of controlling audio.
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 CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights