DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 05/16/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-13 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 05/16/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Statements (IDSs) filed on 06/28/2024, 07/30/2025 have been accepted/considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
4. The Applicants priority to International Application # PCT/JP2021/042416, filed November 18, 2021, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
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.
5. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as these claims explicitly recite a computer program per se. Computer programs claimed as such or as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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.
6. 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, Transmitting Unit, Receiving 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, transmits, receives, 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation: The information processing device has a processor, a memory, a storage, an input/output interface (input/output I/F) and a communication interface. The processor 401 may include, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), an MPU (Micro Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a microprocessor, a processor core, a multiprocessor, an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) and the like (Paragraphs 35-36).
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 § 102
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 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.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kirovski (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2005/0055214 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Kirovski teaches a system comprising an embedding unit that generates second audio data by embedding a plurality of watermark data in a first sequence in first audio data (Figure 2, shows an input signal which is converted to a watermarked audio signal);
a transmitting unit that transmits 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 that receives third audio data corresponding to the second audio data via a transmission medium (Figure 5, shows receiving watermarked audio data);
a detection unit that detects a plurality of watermark data in a second sequence from the received third audio data (Figure 5, further shows detecting watermarked data);
and a determination unit that determines 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).
With regards to claim 2, Kirovski teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the validity of the third audio data with respect to the first audio data, based on consistency between the plurality of watermark data having the first sequence embedded in the first audio data and the plurality of watermark data having the second sequence detected from the third audio data (Para 62, teaches detection of synchronization by determining which T-block interval of the watermarked audio signal contains the watermark pattern).
With regards to claim 3, Kirovski teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit determines reproducibility of the first audio data in the third audio data, based on the consistency as the determination of 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 2, wherein the embedding unit generates the second audio data by embedding the plurality of watermark data in the first sequence corresponding 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 determines identity of a user associated with the third audio data and a user associated with the first audio data, based on the consistency as the determination of 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 2 or 3, wherein the embedding unit further generates the 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 determines, as the determination of validity, identity of a user associated with the third audio data and a user associated with the first audio data, based on whether the detected plurality of watermark data having the second sequence 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.
Conclusion
8. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Villette (U.S. Patent # 9767822 B2), Sharma (U.S. Patent # 9466307 B1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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)