DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. A response was filed in this application on 04/07/2026 after the non-final rejection of 01/08/2026. Claims 1-13 while no claims are cancelled or added in this latest submission by the Applicant. Thus, claims 1-13 are currently pending for reconsideration by the Examiner and are examined below. 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 arguments
2. With regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 these are withdrawn in light of the current amendments presented in this latest response by the Applicant coupled with the arguments.
The Applicant first argues against an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112, alleging that the newly amended claim limitations overcome it. The applicant also contends that the previous office action did not perform substantive analysis and the approach to this interpretation was improper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the only test for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112 is the 3-prong analysis outlined in section 2181 of the MPEP. This analysis is outlined below:
(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.
As is clear, the use of the term “configured to” does not in any way overcome this analysis. The 3 conditions listed above are also met by the instant claims. However, this interpretation is withdrawn for the transmitting and receiving units in view of the arguments and amendments presented by the Applicant.
The Applicant’s arguments against the prior art references are also fully considered but stand moot in light of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendments presented in this latest response by the Applicant.
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.
3. Claims 1-6, 9 and 12-13 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. Claim limitations in these claims (Embedding Unit, Detection Unit, Determination Unit) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “unit…” coupled with functional language “embeds, detects, determines etc.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1-6, 9 and 12-13 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq., MPEP § 2181 (subsection I), and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). The Examiner would like to reiterate in the end that this is an interpretation and not a rejection.
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, 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.
4. Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirovski (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2005/0055214 A1) in view of Alattar (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0233204 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Kirovski teaches a system comprising an embedding unit configured to generate second audio data by embedding a predetermined plurality of watermark data having a first sequence in first audio data (Figure 2, shows an input signal which is converted to a watermarked audio signal. Paragraphs 36-37, teach a content producer that has a watermark encoding system to sign the audio data stream with a watermark that uniquely identifies the content as original. A watermark is an array of bits generated using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random bit generator and a new error correction encoder);
a transmitting unit configured to transmit the second audio data via a transmission medium (Figure 1, teaches transmission of watermarked audio data over a network to a decoding/detecting side);
a receiving unit configured to receive third audio data corresponding to the second audio data via the transmission medium (Figure 5, shows receiving watermarked audio data);
a detection unit configured to detect a plurality of watermark data having a second sequence from the received third audio data (Figure 5, further shows detecting watermarked data);
and a determination unit configured to determine validity of the third audio data with respect to the first audio data, based on the plurality of watermark data having the second sequence detected from the third audio data (Figure 5, equation 4, para 72, teach detecting of strong and weak watermark flags which ascertain validity);
However, Kirovski may not explicitly detail the limitation wherein the first sequence is a sequence predetermined according to information indicated by the plurality of watermark data. This is taught by Alattar which teaches a dual audio and video watermarking technique (Para 54, teaches an audio watermark encoder that embeds an imperceptible spread spectrum signal e.g., in the 120 Hz to 8 kHz range, into the magnitude of the frequency coefficients of each channel of the host audio. The host audio is typically sampled at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz. The encoder generates watermarked audio by first processing the host audio as frames of 2048 consecutive samples at 16 kHz sampling rate. A spread spectrum watermark is embedded in the frequency representation of each of these frames. A different payload is embedded in every one second of audio using an extensible payload protocol that enables the deployment of different watermark versions. The fine granularity of the watermark allows the system to detect fine alteration of the audio track);
Alattar also teaches determining validity of different audio data based on consistency between the predetermined plurality of watermark data having the first sequence embedded in the first audio data (Para 118, teaches that if both audio and video watermarks are found, the system checks the consistency between them to make sure they contain related VID. Only the 5 least significant bits of the VID decoded from the video need to match the LVID decoded from the audio. If they do not, the system reports to the user that the video is fake. The system localizes alteration by returning output indicating locations in the content where the audio and video segments lack consistency. These are locations where the interdependency between the payloads is not satisfied. Specifically, the payload portion based on common data, such as the VID portion in this case, does not match);
Kirovski and Alattar can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in audio watermarking. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Alattar with those of Kirovski as outlined above so as to enable the authentic content to be stored efficiently and reliably, and retrieved for authentication operations (Alattar, para 27).
With regards to claim 3, Kirovski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine reproducibility of the first audio data in the third audio data, based on the consistency as a determination of the validity (Paragraphs 85-87, teach detecting watermark match by solving the synchronization problem).
With regards to claim 4, Kirovski teaches the system according to claim 1, the predetermined plurality of watermark data having the first sequence correspond to user identification information (Para 36 and figure 1, teach that the content producer has a watermark encoding system to sign the audio data stream with a watermark that uniquely identifies the content as original);
and the determination unit is configured to determine identity of a user associated with the third audio data and a user associated with the first audio data, based on the consistency as a determination of the validity (Para 37, teaches that the watermark encoding system applies two types of watermarks: a strong watermark and a weak watermark. The strong watermark identifies the content producer, providing a signature that is embedded in the audio signal and cannot be removed).
With regards to claim 12, please see the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 5, Kirovski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the embedding unit is further configured to generate the predetermined plurality of watermark data having the first sequence to be embedded in the first audio data by executing a predetermined operation based on a predetermined key consisting of a plurality of partial keys having a third sequence and user identification information (Figure 2, teaches the use of a predetermined key which further consists of two partial keys, namely the strong watermark key and the weak watermark key which are embedded into the input signal);
and the determination unit is configured to determine, as a determination of the validity, identity of a user associated with the third audio data and a user associated with the first audio data, based on whether the plurality of watermark data having the second sequence detected from the third audio data are generated by executing the predetermined operation based on the predetermined key and the user identification information (Figure 5 and para 72, teach detecting of strong and weak watermark flags using the strong and weak watermark keys to ascertain validity).
With regards to claim 13, please see the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claims 6 and 9, these are information processing device claims for the corresponding system claim 1. These two sets of claims are related as system and information processing device of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed information processing device step. Accordingly, claims 6 and 9 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 1.
With regards to claims 7 and 10, these are method claims for the corresponding system claim 1. These two sets of claims are related as system and method of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 7 and 10 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 1.
With regards to claims 8 and 11, these are program claims for the corresponding system claim 1. These two sets of claims are related as system and program of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed program step. Accordingly, claims 8 and 11 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 2 is 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 prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not currently suggest or teach the invention as outlined in these claims. More detailed reasons for allowance will be outlined as and when the Application proceeds to allowability.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0121374 A1), Jalali (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0092157 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights