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 Objections
Claim 1, 11 objected to because of the following informalities: there is no explicit antecedent for the recited “the modification,” the phrase will be considered to resolve the recited “modifying at least one of the function matrices.” Claim 7, 17 objected to because of the following informalities: there is no explicit antecedent for the recited “distribution gains” the phrase will be considered to resolve and modify the recited “distribution” of claim 1, 11 and apply gain thereto. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. Claim(s) 1, 11, 20 is/are directed to an abstract idea as the claims resolve mathematical practices and/or methods of organizing and manipulating data. The claimed architecture relies on a transforming stack of function matrices to process numerical values and thereby update a distribution of function values. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the technical elements recited do not appear on their face to improve or in fact resolve a problem specific to the proffered solution which is also not claimed. Further the claimed subject matter does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the claims merely resolve a general purpose computer operable to input an audio signal and perform mathematical processes thereupon. Claims 2-10, 12-19 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Max/MSP (documentation provided by Examiner, available at least 3/2022 and hereinafter Max (exemplified as Max_1: “what is Max,” product page available 2022; Max_Matrix: Max 7 module page available as part of Max 7 package circa 2010; Max_Examples: “Music Technology Examples,” available Spring 2013 and illustrative of Max patches comprising arrays of processing modules particular the matrix~ module as part of a patch; Max_Examples_2: “Music Technology Examples,” available Spring 2012 and illustrative of Max patches comprising arrays of processing modules comprising a more detailed example of the matrix~ module as part of a processing chain.)
Regarding claim 1
Max teaches:
A method of distributing audio signals from a plurality of audio inputs to a plurality of audio outputs in response to a user-defined distribution and a plurality of function matrices (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: a Max/MSP patch comprises a plurality of available primitives or function matrices distributed into a processing configuration by a user (see the various examples of Max_Examples), said function matrices receive input, output, and processing arguments, such as the cited matrix function, matrix~, which accepts a plurality of user defined distributions of parameters in the form of creation arguments defining inlets, outlets, gain values and other processing parameters of the module),
each of the function matrices comprising a two-dimensional array of function nodes and each of the function matrices being a layer in a respective third dimension in a transforming stack of the function matrices (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: the patch comprises a plurality of functional modules, such as the matrix~ module, said modules operable to perform processing as directed by setup commands upon the module to process an additional dimension of time wise user and audio data which the modules convey within the patch to generate an output; a transforming stack is considered a layered framework of components operating in unison each of the components having a discrete or specific role), the method comprising:
a) establishing a transformed distribution by processing the user-defined distribution through the layers of the transforming stack (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: such as by propagating audio signal and user signal along the patch); b) receiving user input signals for a requested change in distribution of the audio inputs to the audio outputs and identifying a modifying request in the user input signals (Max; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: such as shown in a simplified manner in example 3, the third dimension of user, audio, etc. signal data which is represent by a click on the left or right message box which directs a particular signal from a particular input to an output at a particular volume);
c) modifying at least one of the function matrices in response to the modifying request (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: a user click upon a particular message box sets up the processing matrix to switchable convey a particular signal at a particular volume to a particular output and thence to modules downstream in a patch);
d) updating the transformed distribution by processing a gain factor through at least one layer of the transforming stack in response to the modification (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3: the output of the matrix~ conveys a particular signal at a particular volume which propagates downstream in the patch to the output); and
e) distributing the audio signals from the audio inputs to the audio outputs in response to the updated transformed distribution (Max_1; Max_Matrix; Max_Examples: Example 3; Max_Examples_2: Example 35: such as shown in example by the presence of the terminal speaker icon representative of the audio output). While Max does not explicitly discuss the system operative upon a processor in concert with memory this is considered inherent to the operation of the patch.
Regarding claim 11, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Heydekampf: 20100303260 hereinafter Hey and further in view of Kloiber: 20060072771 hereinafter Klo.
Regarding claim 1
Hey teaches:
A system for distributing audio signals from a plurality of audio inputs to a plurality of audio outputs (Hey: Abstract; Fig 2, 5: a system of one or more decentralized mixer nodes, each operable for inputting and output audio signals locally and over a network), comprising:
an interface for generating user input signals in response to user input (Hey: ¶ 19: Fig 1, 2, 4, 5: such as submixer and/or mixer nodes of figure 5 operable to provide user input signals to a network such as at step 414); and
one or more processors configured to distribute the audio signals from the audio inputs to the audio outputs in response to a user-defined distribution and a plurality of function matrices stored in memory of the one or more processors, each of the function matrices comprising a two-dimensional array of function nodes (Hey: Abstract; Fig 3-5; ¶ 21, 22: system operates to create a local mix using a plurality of processing nodes such that a one or more local audio signals upon one or more local, decentralized, etc. mixers is provided to the network; each of the local, decentralized mixers is considered a function matrix comprising a two dimensional array of nodes as depicted in figure 3; the matrix comprising a signal flow through the two dimensions of signal processing, in figure 3 this is presented as a typical set of functions comprising a digital emulation of an audio mixer), and
each of the function matrices being a layer in a respective third dimension in a transforming stack of the function matrices (Hey: ¶ 14, 16, 18; Fig 2, 3: input dsp allows for editing of signals such as by user directed signal processing parameters including eq, level, etc., and additionally includes an output dsp which allows for bus wise processing of the individual channels such as by application of a channel using the audio send volume or gain to an effect “for additional audio effects processing, for example chorusing, flanging, echo or delay, reverb, vibrato,” etc.; such as “to create a specific monitor mix of all or nearly all the available signals,” by addition to the mix by the local user, such as in over time, in real time, etc.; ; a transforming stack is considered a layered framework of components operating in unison each of the components having a discrete or specific role),
the one or more processors being configured to distribute the audio signals (Hey: ¶ 16; Fig 2: system operative of signal processors in concert with memory to route and process audio) by:
a) establishing a transformed distribution by processing the user-defined distribution through the layers of the transforming stack (Hey: ¶ 14, 16, 18; Fig 2, 3: each/any user may “create a specific monitor mix of all or nearly all the available signals in a manner how he or she would like to hear it,” this comprises applying particular user manipulations directed to particular mixer components to generate an output local mix);
b) receiving second user input signals for a requested change in distribution of the audio inputs to the audio outputs and identifying a modifying request in the second user input signals (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-18; Fig 2, 3: such as receiving by the system a signal or signals from a local user to enable or disable a particular channel; such as by selection of a particular desired level of the channel or muting the channel thus altering and/or removing the channel from the local mix; this may additionally be accomplished by changing the gain of the aux send wherein a nominal gain of zero is not processed; further as the function matrix is considered the array of processing in concert with the timewise values assigned to the channel processing the user defined distribution changes with respect to an adjustment of any of the functional blocks);
c) modifying at least one of the function matrices in response to the modifying request (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-18; Fig 2, 3: a muted channel does not pass signal to the eq or processing stages nor to the pan or local mix output; alteration of the send additionally alters or modifies the function matrix particularly with respect to the effects processor, output dsp, etc.);
d) updating the transformed distribution by processing a gain factor through at least one layer of the transforming stack in response to the modification (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-18; Fig 2, 3: upon the event of a mute the muted channel is assigned an effective gain of nominally zero and neither further processed nor output; user assignment of a send value of nominal zero to a particular channel updates the gain factor thereof to the effect processor, output dsp, etc.); and
e) distributing the audio signals from the audio inputs to the audio outputs in response to the updated transformed distribution (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-19; Fig 2, 3-5: adjustments made to the local mixer “based at least in part on one or more parameters selected by the user” and propagated to the audio output). Further Hey is considered merely exemplary of any of a plurality of digital mixers functional to operate in real time of a stream of samples, each sample comprising an entry in the function matrix which proceed step by step through the various processing modules engage by the user on each of a plurality of channels of the digital mixer: please see additionally the Protools Reference guide (available 2015 and provided by Examiner; particularly pp 12 and the Mixing: Chapter 43; such as pp 905, 906); and Yamaha DME manual (available 2004 and provided by Examiner; particularly pp 3-5, 8 and chapter 6).
Hey strongly suggests the recited updating of the gain factor as user adjustments such as to component of a channel (Hey: ¶ 18, 19; Fig 3, 4: such as the gain of an input signal at 314, compression/limiter values 318, a level or mute adjustment 320); such adjustments to gain/attenuation of a particular frequency 322 necessarily propagate both the decentralized or networked mixer and thence to plural local mixers in the system which manage additional adjustments to similar gain factors, thus an adjustment to a module of a mixer channel alters the established distribution which then propagates the update through the signal path. Hey displays but does not explicitly discuss the mechanisms which accomplish the propagation of gain updates in the manner claimed.
Ina related field of endeavor Klo teaches a system and method for mixing a plurality of input signals (Klo: ¶ 53-56; Fig 3, 5: system inputs and processing one or more audio input feeds) such as using an interface for generating user input signals in response to user input (Klo: ¶ 53-56; Fig 2, 3, 5: a DAW operable to input audio and process same based on user adjustments); operable to distribute the audio signals from the audio inputs to the audio outputs in response to a user-defined distribution and a plurality of function matrices (Klo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 40, 44, 46, 47, 55: such as the crosspoint of figure 2 operable under user configuration to configure signal paths from input to output) and additionally comprising a plurality of variable gain control points along the signal path and operable to introduce and propagate gain factors based on the connection in such a way as to configure various combinations of particular inputs, sets thereof to particular outputs (Klo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 40, 44, 46, 47, 55), wherein the function matrices comprising a two-dimensional array of function nodes (Klo: such as depicted in figure 2) and each of the function matrices being a layer in a respective third dimension in a transforming stack of the function matrices (Klo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 40, 44, 46, 47, 55: such as based on gain adjustments particularly as dynamically controls such as by a user, and/or by user input into a DAW), such that the system operates to update a distribution by processing of processing across the crosspoint switch, matrix, etc. based on one or more gain factors through at least one layer of the transforming stack in response to user dynamic modification of gain factors, etc. (Klo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 40, 44, 46, 47, 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to propagate gain factors in the manner taught or suggested by Klo through the signal processing modules of Hey such as based on user input to dynamically modify the Klo taught gain factors or indeed any of the signal processing parameters of Hey and/or Klo for at least the purpose of providing a function user interface to a digital audio recorder, workstation, etc. operable in real time to route and process audio in concert with user operations thereon; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured for updating the transformed distribution by: c1) propagating a changed condition through the transforming stack to the transformed distribution in response to the modification; and c2) updating the transformed distribution by processing the gain factor through the at least one layer of the transforming stack in response to the propagated condition (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-19; Fig 2, 3-5: system operates in substantially real time to adjust parameters under direction of a user); (Klo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 40, 44, 46, 47, 55: such as the crosspoint of figure 2 operable under user configuration to configure signal paths from input to output and comprising a plurality of variable gain control points along the configured signal path to introduce and propagate gain factors based on the connection in such a way as to configure various combinations of particular inputs, sets thereof to particular outputs at particular user directed levels). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured for modifying the at least one of the function matrices in response to the modifying request by activating one of the function matrices (Hey: ¶ 14, 16-19; Fig 2, 3-5: such as by adding to or removing from the two dimensional array at least a set of function matrices by muting or applying gain to a particular channel). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured by at least one of the function matrices to reduce at least one dimension of the transforming stack (Hey: ¶ 13, 14, 16-20; Fig 2, 3-5: such as to reduce a plurality of local and network channels to a local mix bus, line out, etc. such as for downmix to a unique local stereo mix and or by muting local channels after output to the networked mixer to minimize local processing while mixing back the returned network channels thereof thus re-dimensioning the amount of channels provided to the mixer). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured by a first function matrix in a first layer of the transforming stack to reduce at least one dimension of the transforming stack by combining outputs from function nodes of a function matrix in a second layer of the transforming stack (Hey: ¶ 13, 14, 16-20; Fig 2, 3-5: such as in a second timewise layer wherein local channels muted upon bus 328 are returned from the networked mixer and mixed upon bus 328 thus re-dimensioning the amount of channels provided to the mixer). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 5, wherein the reducing of at least one dimension is performed by the one or more processors in response to a function matrix in a virtual bus-applying layer (Hey: ¶ 13, 14, 16-20; Fig 2, 3-5: such as in a second timewise layer wherein local channels muted upon bus 328 are returned from the networked mixer and mixed upon bus 328 thus re-dimensioning the amount of channels provided to the mixer; the layer overlay of gains operates to virtually route, amplify/attenuate, and bus the channels within the layer); (Klo: ¶ 30, 31, 49-52: such as to perform processing necessary to route selected input signals to a record, monitor or control matrix, bus, etc.; such as by busing for instance a plurality of drum channels of the DAW to a single or stereo channel of a recorder; the gain layer values operate to virtually route, amplify/attenuate, and bus underlying audio channels). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured by at least one of the function matrices to modify distribution gains in response to a volume-adjusting layer in the transforming stack (Klo: ¶ 53-56; Fig 2, 3, 5: crosspoint switch comprises a volume control fabric operable to pass through and/or adjust the volume of a particular input, set thereof to a particular output). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is configured by at least one of the function matrices to serialize the transformed distribution. Examiner takes official notice that serializing a plurality of audio channels for transport, subsequent processing, and output or retransmission was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of managing particular channels, sets of channels, upon particular audio sub-frames, as a mono stream, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors is configured by function nodes in an activated layer comprising the activated function matrix to mask a plurality of user-defined distribution gains (Hey: ¶ 13, 14, 16-20; Fig 2, 3-5: such as by passing one or more active local channels to the networked mixer prior to local processing). The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Hey in view of Klo teaches or suggests:
The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors is configured by function nodes in an activated layer comprising the activated function matrix to re-route a plurality of input signals. Examiner takes official notice that switchable routing of one or more of a plurality of audio channels such as for busing, subsequent processing, or other routing demands was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of managing particular channels, sets of channels, with respect to desired audio signal paths, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is considered obvious over Hey as modified by Klo as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Hey and/or Klo to the modified device of Hey and Klo; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
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