DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process; claims 11-18 are directed to a system, which is a machine or an article of manufacture; and claims 19-20 are directed to computer-readable media, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 1 recites determining a device configuration, providing an indication, determining audio is transcoded, determining a likely MOS, and determining an action, which are mental processes. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, receiving information is mere extrasolution activity, and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, determining a device configuration, providing an indication, determining audio is transcoded, determining a likely MOS, and determining an action are mental processes, which is an abstract idea. For example, a human could determine that a device is able to operate using several codecs and provide a message indicating such, determine that audio received has been transcoded, and calculate a MOS and decide what to do with that MOS. Additional limitations of receiving requests and data are mere extrasolution activity, while processor, memory, and computer readable media are generic computing components, and neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, determining characteristics is a mental process, while providing and receiving data to and from a model is mere extrasolution activity, and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, comparing a value to a threshold and determining the action are mental processes, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, providing the SIP invite could be considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea, and could also be considered as mere extrasolution activity in providing information, without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, determining codec information is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, determining information from received data is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, performing the action is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 5-11, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper et al. (US 2009/0154658 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kasper, in view of Gibbs et al. (US 2005/0100005 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gibbs.
Regarding claim 1, Kasper teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an application and from an originating device, a request to initiate an audio communication with a terminating device (para [0020], [0023], where a group call session is initiated by a client sending an SIP invite to servers, and para [0045], where the computer software is considered the application);
determining, by the application, that the originating device is configured to process given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the invite message include which codecs are offered by the originating device);
providing, for output by the application via a first session initiation protocol (SIP) session description protocol (SDP) message, an indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the servers modify the SDP offer and send the SIP invite to a client target);
receiving, by the application via a second SIP SDP message, data indicating a selection of the first codec (para [0023], where the client responds with a message containing the subset of the offered SDP codecs that the client can support);
based on the likely MOS of the audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data, determining, by the application, an action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio (para [0018], where a weighting function is used to select the optimal vocoder which maximizes the MOS, where the vocoder is able to be changed dynamically between speech bursts).
Kasper does not teach:
determining, by the application, that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec;
based on determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining, by the application, a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data; and
Gibbs teaches:
determining, by the application, that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec (para [0035-37], [0044], where a transcoded representation of the audio is received);
based on determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining, by the application, a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data (Fig. 3, para [0054], where predicted MOS based on conversion from one codec to another is determined); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kasper by using the predicted MOS of Gibbs (Gibbs Fig. 3) in the vocoder assignment of Kasper (Kasper para [0018]), in order to determine which codecs result in the best MOS quality ratings (Gibbs para [0054-55]).
Regarding claim 5, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
comparing the MOS of the audio to a threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where the system determines whether the MOS is maximized or not); and
determining that the MOS of the audio does not satisfy the threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where the system determines whether the MOS is maximized or not),
wherein determining the action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio is further based on determining that the MOS of the audio does not satisfy the threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where a vocoder that maximizes the MOS is selected).
Regarding claim 6, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein providing the indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using the first codec and the second codec comprises:
providing a session initiation protocol (SIP) invite that includes the indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using the first codec and the second codec (Kasper para [0023], where the invite message include which codecs are offered by the originating device).
Regarding claim 7, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec comprises:
determining, by the application, codec information of the terminating device via a session initiation protocol, session description protocol negotiation message (Kasper para [0016], [0020], where codec negotiation is performed using SDP within SIP).
Regarding claim 8, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec comprises:
determining that the audio data received or to be received includes data indicating that the audio data is transcoded (Gibbs para [0037], [0043-47], where the codec type identifier indicates the codec used, the codec resulting in two representations of audio, one of which is transcoded).
Regarding claim 9, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the audio communication is a voice communication between a first user of the originating device and a second user of the terminating device (Kasper para [0013-14], where the audio communication is a group call between an originator and at least one other member).
Regarding claim 10, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
performing, by the application, the action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio (Kasper para [0018], where a weighting function is used to select the optimal vocoder which maximizes the MOS, where the vocoder is able to be changed dynamically between speech bursts).
Regarding claim 11, Kasper teaches:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors (para [0045], where processors are used); and
a memory including a plurality of computer-executable components that are executable by the one or more processors to perform a plurality of acts (para [0045], where memory is necessary to running computer software using the processors), the plurality of acts comprising:
receiving, from an originating device, a request to initiate an audio communication with a terminating device (para [0020], [0023], where a group call session is initiated by a client sending an SIP invite to servers);
determining that the originating device is configured to process given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the invite message include which codecs are offered by the originating device);
providing, for output, an indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the servers modify the SDP offer and send the SIP invite to a client target);
receiving data indicating a selection of the first codec (para [0023], where the client responds with a message containing the subset of the offered SDP codecs that the client can support);
providing, for output, a first session initiation protocol, session description protocol negotiation message (para [0016], [0020], where codec negotiation is performed using SDP within SIP);
based on the likely MOS of the audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data, determining an action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio (para [0018], where a weighting function is used to select the optimal vocoder which maximizes the MOS, where the vocoder is able to be changed dynamically between speech bursts).
Kasper does not teach:
in response to providing, for output, the session initiation protocol, session description protocol negotiation message, receiving data indicating the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec;
based on receiving the data indicating that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec, determining a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data; and
Gibbs teaches:
in response to providing, for output, the session initiation protocol, session description protocol negotiation message, receiving data indicating the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec (para [0035-37], [0044], where a transcoded representation of the audio is received);
based on receiving the data indicating that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec, determining a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data (Fig. 3, para [0054], where predicted MOS based on conversion from one codec to another is determined); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kasper by using the predicted MOS of Gibbs (Gibbs Fig. 3) in the vocoder assignment of Kasper (Kasper para [0018]), in order to determine which codecs result in the best MOS quality ratings (Gibbs para [0054-55]).
Regarding claim 15, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of acts comprise:
comparing the MOS of the audio to a threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where the system determines whether the MOS is maximized or not); and
determining that the MOS of the audio does not satisfy the threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where the system determines whether the MOS is maximized or not),
wherein determining the action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio is further based on determining that the MOS of the audio does not satisfy the threshold MOS (Kasper para [0018], where a vocoder that maximizes the MOS is selected).
Regarding claim 16, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein providing the indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using the first codec and the second codec comprises:
providing a session initiation protocol (SIP) invite that includes the indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using the first codec and the second codec (Kasper para [0023], where the invite message include which codecs are offered by the originating device).
Regarding claim 17, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the audio communication is a voice communication between a first user of the originating device and a second user of the terminating device (Kasper para [0013-14], where the audio communication is a group call between an originator and at least one other member).
Regarding claim 18, Kasper in view of Gibbs teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of acts comprise:
performing, by the application, the action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio (Kasper para [0018], where a weighting function is used to select the optimal vocoder which maximizes the MOS, where the vocoder is able to be changed dynamically between speech bursts).
Regarding claim 19, Kasper teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more computers to perform acts (para [0045], where memory is necessary to running computer software using the processors) comprising:
receiving, from an originating device, a request to initiate an audio communication with a terminating device (para [0020], [0023], where a group call session is initiated by a client sending an SIP invite to servers);
determining that the originating device is configured to process given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the invite message include which codecs are offered by the originating device);
providing, for output, an indication that the originating device is configured to process the given audio data using a first codec and a second codec (para [0023], where the servers modify the SDP offer and send the SIP invite to a client target);
receiving data indicating a selection of the first codec (para [0023], where the client responds with a message containing the subset of the offered SDP codecs that the client can support);
based on the likely MOS of the audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data, determining an action that is configured to increase the MOS of the audio (para [0018], where a weighting function is used to select the optimal vocoder which maximizes the MOS, where the vocoder is able to be changed dynamically between speech bursts).
Kasper does not teach:
determining that the data indicating the selection of the first codec includes a flag indicating that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec;
based the data indicating the selection of the first codec includes the flag indicating that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec;
based on determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data; and
Gibbs teaches:
determining that the data indicating the selection of the first codec includes a flag indicating that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or another codec (para [0037], [0043-47], where the codec type identifier indicates the codec used, the codec resulting in two representations of audio, one of which is transcoded);
based the data indicating the selection of the first codec includes the flag indicating that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining that audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec (para [0037], [0043-47], where the codec type identifier indicates the codec used, the codec resulting in two representations of audio, one of which is transcoded);
based on determining that the audio data received or to be received is transcoded from the second codec or the other codec, determining a likely mean opinion score (MOS) of audio output by the originating device from processing the transcoded audio data (Fig. 3, para [0054], where predicted MOS based on conversion from one codec to another is determined); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kasper by using the predicted MOS of Gibbs (Gibbs Fig. 3) in the vocoder assignment of Kasper (Kasper para [0018]), in order to determine which codecs result in the best MOS quality ratings (Gibbs para [0054-55]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 12, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Kasper and Gibbs do not teach the limitations of the claims. Specifically, none of the cited prior art teaches the determining of the characteristics of the codecs and devices, and providing the characteristics to a model that outputs a likely MOS from processing a transcoded audio signal, in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations found in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0247464 A1 para [0053] teaches a predicted quality score corresponding to a MOS depending on a codec; US 2019/0073603 A1 para [0065] teaches learning to predict MOS based on new codecs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658