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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 7/6/2026. Claim 15 is amended. Claim 18 is cancelled. 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 on pages 8-9 that “Combining Charoenruengskit with Robinson would render Robinson inoperable for its intended purpose. Robinson discloses using a dialnorm value in a metadata bitstream to adjust an entire audio signal in a single audio bitstream, or equalizing the perceived loudness of different audio signal encodings and formats. See paragraphs [0031], [0040], [0066] and [0069]. Charoenruengskit, however, discloses adjusting the level of a speech signal in a first file/stream to match the level of background noise in a second file/stream. Applying the level matching of Charoenruengskit to Robinson would interfere with the intended purpose of the dialnorm parameter by, for example, modifying the speech dialogue based on background noise in a separate bitstream rather than for the intended purpose of the dialnorm parameter to enhance dialogue. Combining Schmidt with Charoenruengskit and Robinson would further render Robinson inoperable for its intended purpose. Schmidt discloses encoding speech audio objects (as opposed to an audio channel as disclosed by Robinson) with a positive or negative gain, such that the gain can be chosen such that the position of a user interface slider prevents a 0 dB from being selected by the user. See, e.g., paragraphs [087] and [088]. A slider for adjusting a speech audio object in a channel-based audio format would have no technical effect and therefore one with ordinary skill in the art would not consider adding such a user interface slider. Additionally, even if the gain was applied to the entire audio signal as disclosed by Robinson, applying such gain based on the position of a user interface slider would interfere with the intended purpose of the dialnorm parameter disclosed by Robinson by, for example, modifying the speech dialogue based on the position of a user interface slider rather than for the intended purpose of the dialnorm value to enhance dialogue”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Robinson discloses a system that relates to audio processing and more particularly, determining the gain (positive or negative) to be applied to a signal output from an audio receiver device, such as an integrated receiver/decoder (IRD) or set top box (STB), or integrated TV, so that on playback via a connected audio playback device, the audio decoded from different transports streams will appear to the listener to be equal in loudness (see Robinson, at least at [0027]).
Charoenruengskit discloses a system that relates to the field of digital signal processing of audio, and, more particularly, to using a loudness-level-reference segment of audio to normalize relative audio levels among different audio files when combining content of the audio files, and discloses that although the invention is explained in terms of combining speech audio files with ambient noise audio files for speech processing purposes, the invention is not so limited. Rather, any audio files can be combined with any other audio files using the inventive solution to ensure that audio level is normalized in the combined audio file. This occurs regardless of audio levels of the component audio recordings (see Charoenruengskit, at least at [0002] and [0036]).
Schmidt discloses a system that relates to audio processing, and more particularly, providing personalized audio and/or video content to a user via the HbbTV (Hybrid broadcast broadband TV) environment, with the specification ETSI TS 102 796, and which makes use of the HTML5 (hypertext markup language) protocol. This includes encoding all objects with a positive or negative gain. The gain may then be chosen such that for any position of the user interface slider, i.e. for any gain value, a resulting value of 0 dB is prevented. As an example: If the dialog is boosted by a maximum of 3 dB an encode of that dialog with −4 dB will always ensure a non-zero value resulting in a constant number of bits, which is spend on that field. The signal may be altered in level, which will be compensated by setting the dialnorm correctly to the new loudness (i.e. making it effectively −27 dB for the dialog example stated above, if the content was typical (EBU R-128) content) (see Schmidt, at least at [0004] and [0087]).
The Applicant should please note that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, by modifying Robinson's system to include the limitations as taught by Charoenruengskit and Schmidt, a more efficient method of controlling and managing audio is realized using various methods, for various different types of audio signals and protocols, and Robinson's system is not made inoperable.
The Applicants should please note that the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). >See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situation a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.") (see MPEP 2123[R-5]). Therefore, the rejection of record is maintained.
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
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