The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim 9 is objected to because the claim on line 4 refers to “said selected one or more frequency bands of said audio content”, but line 2 of the claim only recites “select one or more frequency bands”. Line 2 of the claim should be amended to be “select one or more frequency bands of said audio content” to clarify the claim language.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is drawn to a “computer program”, per se, therefore fails to fall within a statutory category of invention. A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacturer, or
A composition of matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite on lines 17-18 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “said subsets of said one or more audio characteristics”. There is antecedent basis for “said one or more subsets of said audio characteristics”, but not “for said subsets of said one or more audio characteristics”. The claims should be amended accordingly.
Claim 2 is indefinite on lines 6-7 because “one or more said subsets of said audio characteristics” is unclear. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “said one or more subsets of said audio characteristics” in order to clarify the claim language.
Claim 2 is further indefinite on line 7 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “said one or more audio characteristics”. Does one mean “said audio characteristics” or “said one or more subsets of said audio characteristics” herein? Claim 5 is indefinite on line 3 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “said one or more audio characteristics”. Does one mean “said audio characteristics” or “said one or more subsets of said audio characteristics” herein? Claim 7 is indefinite on lines 2-3 because there is no clear antecedent for “said subset of said audio characteristics”. Which subset of the one or more subsets of the audio characteristics is one referring to here? Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “said one or more subsets of said audio characteristics” herein.
Claim 14 is indefinite on line 3 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the at least one processor”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penke et al. (US 2018/0098151) considered with Rycroft et al. (US 2020/0275152).
Penke discloses a system and method for multichannel audio interception and redirection (see abstract). The system and method, comprising: at least one input interface; at least one transmitter; and at least one processor configured to: obtain information indicative of a type of the audio rendering system and/or one or more types of one or more audio rendering devices comprised in the audio rendering system (see para. 0009, regarding detected hardware capability; see also, para. 0041, regarding an audio redirector 201 may check a device’s hardware capabilities to configure its reporting appropriately, so that it reports the correct functionality to the abstraction layer 130 for use in providing audio for rendering); determining audio rendering capabilities of the audio rendering system, based on the type of the audio rendering system and/or based on the one or more types of the one or more audio rendering devices (see the abstract; and para. 0041, regarding an audio redirector 201 may check a device’s hardware capabilities to configure its reporting appropriately, so that it reports the correct functionality to the abstraction layer 130 for use in providing audio for rendering). Penke, however, does not teach a system or method of controlling one or more lighting devices to render light effects, based on the audio rendering capabilities, while an audio rendering system renders audio content.
Rycroft teaches a system and method of controlling one or more lighting devices to render light effects while an audio rendering system renders audio content (see the abstract); obtaining audio characteristics of the audio content (see para. 005, 0017-0018); selecting a subset of the audio characteristics based on the audio rendering capabilities of the audio rendering system (see para. 0005, regarding that light effects can, for example, be rendered based on a beat that is present in the audio content); determining light effects based on the subset of the audio characteristics (see para. 0005, regarding that light effects can, for example, be rendered based on a beat that is present in the audio content); and controlling the one or more lighting devices to render the light effects (see para. 0005, regarding that light effects can, for example, be rendered based on a beat that is present in the audio content).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Penki, in view of Rycroft, such that a dynamic light system and method is provided that provides a user an immersive experience by extracting colors from video content and rendering the extracted colors by a lighting device, based on the audio rendering capabilities of the audio rendering system, which can be rendered for example based on a beat that is present in the audio content.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the processor determines events in the audio content based on the audio rendering capabilities, the events corresponding to moments in the audio content when the one or more subsets of the audio characteristics meet predetermined requirements (e.g., based on a beat that is present in audio content), and determine the light effects (e.g., intensity) for the events, based on the one or more subsets of the audio characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, the audio rendering capabilities comprise a capability of reproducing different frequencies (e.g., whether or not the audio devices include a subwoofer for reproducing low frequency sounds, for example, as taught by Penke).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the at least one processor is configured to select one or more frequency bands or key frequencies (e.g., low frequency band or frequencies) based on the capability of reproducing different frequencies, determine events in the audio content which are associated with a key frequency of the one or more key frequencies (low frequency sounds), and select one or more subsets of the audio characteristics by selecting audio characteristics associated with the events. For example, when there is not a subwoofer present, as determined by the invention of Penke, then low frequency sound and light effects associated with the subwoofer will not be dedicated to a subwoofer channel for the subwoofer speaker.
Regarding claim 11, audio rendering capabilities include a capability of reproducing surround sound and/or are indicative of a number of channels. See Penke, which determines whether or not the capabilities of the rendering system including surround sound capabilities and the number of channels the system is capable of rendering.
Regarding claim 12, the at least one processor is configured to select one or more audio source positions based on the capability of reproducing surround sound and/or the number of audio channels (for example, stereo audio or 5.1 audio which includes surround and subwoofer channels), and select one or more audio channels and/or audio objects of the audio content based on the one or more audio source positions, and select the one or more subsets of the audio characteristics based on the selected one or more audio channels and/or audio objects. See Penke, figs. 5 and 11, for example.
Regarding claim 14, see Penke, para. 0064, regarding a computer program product for a computing device. Penke, as modified by Rycroft, as explained in the rejection above, discloses the computer program product for a computing device, the computer program product comprising computer program code to perform the method of claim 13 when the computer program product is run on at least one processor of the computing device.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 each disclose a system and method for controlling lighting devices in an audio system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
January 20, 2026