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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is response to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 04, 2026.
Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1, 4-9 have been amended. Claims 11-15 are newly added. Claims 1-9, and 11-15 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 introduces new limitations and has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Unlike this example with the underlined limitation wherein “define(ing) the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data and impart(ing) the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data and the defined parameter for the audio processing”, which would direct parameter definition to a practical application, audio data processing, by “and impart(ing) the sound effects…”, the newly added elements by Applicant as underlined wherein “define the parameter…for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data”, i.e. “for imparting the sound effects” is intended purpose/usage, and the act in this limitation as a combination is still “define the parameter” but not “imparting the sound effects” and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the previously identified judicial exception (an abstract idea) in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 4 has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has introduced a new deficiency that is substantially the same as claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 8 has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has not fixed its previous deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 11 has introduced a new deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 has introduced a new deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 has introduced a new deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 has introduced a new deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 has introduced a new deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. It is rejected in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant argues “the pending independent claim(s) do not merely recite gathering/transmitting of data as characterized by the examiner…The pending claims focus on the technological implementation, not on any mental process.” on page 7. The office disagrees with Applicant’s argument and the office never states that the independent claims “merely recite gathering/transmitting of data”, instead, the office states the following: “If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea…”. The office continues to provide additional explanation such as the following: “…The additional elements 3) and 4) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity….Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim….”. A high level of generality is insignificant extra-solution activity and no meaningful technological details are provided to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Second, Applicant argues “Under Step 2A Prong 2, a claim must be reviewed as a whole, not in
isolation, while avoiding oversimplification in considering whether a claim as a whole is directed to an improvement…” on page 8. The office would like to reiterate that the office indeed rejected these claims based on the claim as a whole, not in isolation: “…The additional elements 3) and 4) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity….Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim….”. These are insignificant extra-solution activity as stated in the office rejection. The office considers these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, which is about activity at a high level of generality.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims 1,2-4,6-7, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C § 102/103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-5, 7-8 & 11-15 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1: the claim recites an apparatus, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: the claim recites the limitations:
a) A parameter definition apparatus for defining a parameter for audio processing of audio data by which sound effects are imparted to the audio data, the parameter definition apparatus comprising:
b) define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data;
The limitation of define a parameter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the “one memory” and “one processor” language, “definition”, “defining”, and “define” in the context of this claim encompasses a human manually evaluating and/or judging the audio data, e.g. volume of the audio data, which can be done using pen and paper as a physical aid. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited “definition”, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of a memory and a processor in the claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim merely uses the memory and the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
The additional elements 1) and 2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The memory and processor are used as tools to perform the acquiring, defining, and transmitting steps of the claim. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites additional elements:
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to use the audio data, at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data:
“…for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device…”
transmit the defined parameter for the audio processing to the second data processing device.
The additional elements 3) and 5) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05. Regarding the additional elements 4), unlike this example with the underlined limitation wherein “define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data and impart the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data and the defined parameter for the audio processing”, which would direct parameter definition to a practical application, audio data processing, by “and impart the sound effects…”, the newly added elements by Applicant as underlined wherein “define the parameter…for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data” is still “define the parameter” but not “imparting the sound effects” and are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more, as shown in the court cases.
See OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price);
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
The additional elements 1) and 2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to use the audio data, at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data:
“…for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device…”
transmit the defined parameter for the audio processing to the second data processing device.
The additional elements 3) and 5) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The additional elements 4) is intended purpose/usage. They are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a module characteristic from a system environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions or intended purpose to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-8 & 11-15 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites additional limitations:
a) the user device is disposed in a vehicle, and
b) the first data processing device is a vehicle management server configured to manage the vehicle via a network.
Claim 3 recites additional limitation:
a) wherein the environmental data includes at least one of a vehicle operation state of the vehicle or a running state of the vehicle.
Claim 4 recites additional limitations:
a) the first data processing device is a distribution server configured to distribute the audio data via a network, and
b) the user device is configured to play the audio data distributed from the distribution server via the network.
Claim 5 additional the limitation:
a) wherein the audio property data includes at least one of a genre of the audio data or a file format of the audio data to be converted to a file format supported by the user device.
Claim 7 recites additional limitation:
a) wherein the second data processing device is also different from the user device.
Claim 8 recites additional limitation:
wherein the user device includes the second data processing device.
Claim 11 recites additional limitations:
the first data processing device is a vehicle management device,
the user device is a vehicle audio device included in a vehicle,
the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device, the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle,
sound data corresponding to the sound collected by the microphones is transmitted
from the vehicle to the vehicle management server, which analyzes the sound data and estimates the audio features of the vehicle audio device.
Claim 12 recites additional limitations:
the first data processing device is a vehicle management server,
the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle,
the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio
device, the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle,
the vehicle audio device analyzes the sound collected by the microphones and
estimates the audio features,
the vehicle transmits the audio feature data corresponding to the estimated audio
features to the vehicle management server,
Claim 13 recites additional limitations:
the second device data indicates performance of the second data processing device,
the second data processing device is one of a vehicle audio device or a smartphone,
Claim 14 recites additional limitation:
wherein the audio processing to impart the sound effects include at least one of environment adaption, volume control, or audio adjustment.
Claim 15 recites additional limitations:
the audio data is a song,
the audio property data includes at least song content identifying at least a musical
genre of the song, and
the song content further identifies at least one of a song name or an artist name of the song.
Claims 2-5, 7-8 & 11-15 further recite additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, the additional element recited in claim 2 a) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it amounts to merely link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Mere linking the abstract ideas to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more details; and the additional element in amended Claim 4 b) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the additional elements recited in amended Claim 5 a) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components for intended purpose/usage, i.e. “to be converted to a file format supported by the user device”, and the additional elements recited in new claims 11-15 further limits data, device(s), and audio processing, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, claims 2-5. 7-8 & 11-15 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Regarding Claim 6,
Step 1: the claim recites an apparatus, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: the claim recites the limitations:
A parameter definition apparatus for defining a parameter for audio processing of audio data by which sound effects are imparted to the audio data, the parameter definition apparatus comprising:
define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data based on the acquired at least two categories of data;
The limitation of define a parameter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the “one memory” and “one processor” language, “definition”, “defining”, and “define” in the context of this claim encompasses a human manually evaluating and/or judging the audio data, e.g. volume of the audio data, which can be done using pen and paper as a physical aid. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited “definition”, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of a memory and a processor in the claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim merely uses the memory and the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
The additional elements 1) and 2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The memory and processor are used as tools to perform the acquiring, defining, and transmitting steps of the claim. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites additional elements:
acquire the audio data;
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to use the audio data, at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data: environmental data indicative of information related to an environment where the audio data is to be played: first device data indicative of information related to the user device: and audio property data indicative of information related to the audio data:
“…for the audio processing of the audio data based on the acquired at least two categories of data…”
process the acquired audio data based on the defined parameter for the audio processing;
transmit the processed audio data to the user device so that the processed audio data is playable by the user device.
The additional elements 3)-4), 6) and 7) are mere data gathering/post-solution activity/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05. Regarding the additional elements 5), unlike this example with the underlined limitation wherein “define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data and process the audio data by imparting the sound effects based on the acquired at least two categories of data”, which would direct parameter definition to a practical application, audio data processing, by “and process the audio data by imparting the sound effects…”, the newly added elements by Applicant as underlined wherein “define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data based on the acquired at least two categories of data” is for intended purpose/usage, i.e. “for the audio processing of the audio data”, and the act in this limitation as a combination is still “define the parameter” but not “imparting the sound effects” and are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more, as shown in the court cases.
See OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price);
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1) at least one memory storing a program;
2) at least one processor that executes the program to:
The additional elements 1) and 2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
acquire the audio data;
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to use the audio data, at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data: environmental data indicative of information related to an environment where the audio data is to be played: first device data indicative of information related to the user device: and audio property data indicative of information related to the audio data:
“…for the audio processing of the audio data based on the acquired at least two categories of data…”
process the acquired audio data based on the defined parameter for the audio processing;
transmit the processed audio data to the user device so that the processed audio data is playable by the user device.
The additional elements 3)-4), 6)-7) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The additional elements 5) represents intended purpose. They are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a module characteristic from a system environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions or intended purpose/usage to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 1, claim 9 is also rejected for the reasons mentioned in claim 1’s 101 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 (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 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, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi teaches:
A parameter definition apparatus for defining a parameter for audio processing of audio data by which sound effects are imparted to the audio data, the parameter definition apparatus comprising (The
devices to sonically customize audio are a parameter definition apparatus, and they are communicatively connected to each other, see [0016]: “the entities of the system 100 are communicatively coupled to each other”, also see Fig. 1):
at least one memory storing a program (memory elements are at least one memory, [0081]: “A
data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code will include at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus”; program can be saved in the memory, see [0078]: “Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, including, but is not limited to…read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs… flash memories including USB keys with non-volatile memory or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, each coupled to a computer system bus”); and
at least one processor that executes the program to (at least one processor executes the program, see [0081]: “A data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code will include at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus”):
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to use the audio data (The controller 202 can be at least a processor and can receive, i.e. acquires, data from at least one or more components among sensors, the client device, the audio reproduction device, the mobile device, and the server, see [0070]: “The controller 202 receives 302 sensor data from one or more sensors 120. The controller 202 receives 303 a first set of data from the audio reproduction device 104. The controller 202 receives 304 a second set of data from the client device 106. The controller 202 receives 306 a third set of data from the mobile device 134. Optionally, the controller 202 receives 307 social graph data associated with the user from the social network server 101”, see Figs 2 and 3; The controller 202 is part of the tuning module that has three different implementations, any of the client device 106 or the mobile device 134 with the tuning module implemented other than the audio reproduction device 104 can be a first data processing device, [0023]:“…the tuning module 112 is operable on the audio reproduction device 104. In some other implementations, the tuning module 112 is operable on the client device 106. In some other implementations, the tuning module 112 is stored on a mobile device 134. The tuning module 112 is described below in more detail with reference to FIGS. 2-4B”, also see Figs 1 and 2; at least the speaker in the audio reproduction device 104 to reproduce a sound wave using the audio signal/data can be part of a user device, and it is different from the first data processing device, see [0017]: “The audio reproduction device 104 may include an apparatus for reproducing a sound wave from an audio signal…such as a headphone device, an ear bud device, a speaker dock, a speaker system, a super-aural and a supra-aural headphone device, an in-ear headphone device, a headset or any other audio reproduction device”),
at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data (at least two categories of data are acquired, see [0059], also see Fig.3):
environmental data indicative of information related to an environment where the audio data is
to be played (at least the environmental information in the sensor data e.g. the location data where the music is to be played, can be part of environmental data, see [0054]-[0055]: “…the environment module 206 receives one or more of sensor data from one or more sensors 120, GPS data… the environment module 206 determines that a user is running in a park while listening to music using a headset based on the location data received from the GPS system 136… the environment module 206 receives data describing a weather condition…”);
first device data indicative of information related to the user device (a headset can be part of the user device, the social graph data related to a headset that is used for smoothness enhancement can be first device data related to the user device, see [0059]: “if the social graph data indicates that the user has endorsed a headset that produces a smooth sound, the equalization module 208 generates a sound profile that enhances smoothness of the sound reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104”);
second device data indicative of information related to a second data processing device configured to process the audio data (emulated target sound signature in a sound profile includes device data e.g. indicating sound wave limits of the audio reproduction device, and is indicative of information related to the audio reproduction device, which can be a second data processing device, therefore, second device data can be the emulated target sound signature in a sound profile, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”, also see [0050]: “A target sound signature may include a sound signature of a target sound wave that an audio reproduction device 104 aims to reproduce… A target sound range may include a range within which a target sound signature lies in. In one embodiment, a target sound range has a lower limit and an upper limit”);
audio property data indicative of information related to the audio data (at least the preference data can be part of audio property data, see [0059]: “if the preference data indicates the user prefers high quality bass, the equalization module 208 generates a sound profile that boosts sound quality in the bass”; at least the information in content data describing audio content, from which a genre can be derived, can be part of audio property data, see [0048]: “the monitoring module 204 receives content data describing audio content played in the audio reproduction device 104 from the client device 106 or the mobile device 134, and determines a genre of the audio content (e.g., rock music, pop music, jazz music, an audio book, etc.)”);
define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data for imparting the sound effects to the audio data playable by the user device based on the acquired at least two categories of data
(at least part of a sound profile that is related to sound effects, e.g. sound quality in bass, can be part of the parameter, determining/generating a sound profile includes defining the parameter, which is based on two categories of data, the preference data, i.e. audio property data and the social graph data, i.e. first device data, the sound profile can be used for boosting sound quality in the bass, i.e. imparting sound effects to the audio data; see [0059]: “The equalization module 208 determines a sound profile to be applied to sonically customize the audio reproduction device 104 based on the preference data and the social graph data. For example, if the preference data indicates the user prefers high quality bass, the equalization module 208 generates a sound profile that boosts sound quality in the bass”; the audio data can be played by the user device, i.e. at least the speaker of the audio reproduction device, see [0060]: “…applies the sound profile to the audio reproduction device 104 when the user uses the audio reproduction device 104 to listen to music”);
transmit the defined parameter for the audio processing to the second data processing device (the tuning data includes the sound profile, i.e. the defined parameter, and is transmitted to the processing unit 180 of the audio reproduction device 104, i.e. the second data processing device, for audio processing, see [0027]-[0028]: “the tuning data 152 includes data describing a sound profile…the tuning data 152 may be generated by the tuning module 112 operable in the client device 106. The tuning data 152 may be transmitted from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 included in the audio reproduction device 104 via signal line 103 or the wireless communication link 105… the tuning module 112 generates and transmits the tuning data 152 from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 via a wired connection…causing the processing unit 180 to update a sound profile applied in the audio reproduction device 104 based on the received tuning data 152”).
Regarding claim 8, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the second data processing device, e.g. headset, associated with the second device data can be part of a user device, therefore the user device includes the second data processing device (see [0059]: “if the social graph data indicates that the user has endorsed a headset that produces a smooth sound, the equalization module 208 generates a sound profile that enhances smoothness of the sound reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104”).
Regarding claim 9, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 1, claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over anticipated in view of Oishi for the reasons mentioned in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 14, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the audio processing to impart the sound effects include environment adaption, volume control, and audio adjustment (processing based on an application environment is environment adaptation, see [0061]: “if the application environment indicates the user is sitting in a park and reading a book using a mobile device 134, the equalization module 208 generates a sound profile customized for reading for the audio reproduction device 104”; volume control, see [0061]:”the equalization module 208 may automatically adjust the volume of the audio reproduction device 104”, equalization is audio adjustment, see [0057]: “a sound profile may include equalization data applied to equalize an audio reproduction device 104”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1) in view of Hioki et al. (US 20190188939 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the first data processing device configured to manage other device via a
network (the client device 106 can be the first data processing device, which is configured to manage other device, e.g. the audio reproduction device 104 by generating and transmitting the tuning data via a network, see [0027]-[0028]: “the tuning data 152 includes data describing a sound profile…the tuning data 152 may be generated by the tuning module 112 operable in the client device 106. The tuning data 152 may be transmitted from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 included in the audio reproduction device 104 via signal line 103 or the wireless communication link 105… the tuning module 112 generates and transmits the tuning data 152 from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 via a wired connection…causing the processing unit 180 to update a sound profile applied in the audio reproduction device 104 based on the received tuning data 152”, also see Fig. 1)
Oishi does not teach the underlined wherein the user device is disposed in a vehicle, and the
first data processing device is a vehicle management server configured to manage the vehicle via a network.
Hioki teaches the user device is disposed in a vehicle, and a vehicle management server is
configured to manage the vehicle via a network (an audio device is the user device, see [0015]: “Examples of the facility in the vehicle include…an audio and video device”, the vehicle management server 400 is configured to manage the vehicle, including processing request from the vehicle via a network, see [0036]: “the vehicle 100 requests the vehicle management server 400 to notify the owner that the prohibited vehicle manipulation has been performed", see [0049]: “the vehicle management server 400) via the network using a mobile communication service such as 3G (3 Generation) or Long Term Evolution (LTE)”, also see Fig. 1).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have disposed the user device in a vehicle and adopted the vehicle management server as taught by Hioki in the apparatus as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to control “vehicle manipulation” (see [0036], [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Oishi in view of Hioki teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 103 rejection.
Oishi does not teach the environmental data includes at least one of a vehicle operation state of the vehicle or a running state of the vehicle.
Hioki teaches a vehicle operation state of the vehicle and a running state of the vehicle (information indicating that the glove box, the trunk, or the bonnet is opened is a vehicle operation state and a speed, an acceleration, a yaw rate is a running state, see [0075]: “the manipulation acquisition unit 171 may acquire sensor information indicating that the glove box, the trunk, or the bonnet is opened, and may acquire a speed, an acceleration, a yaw rate, or the like of the vehicle 100”
[0076]: “The manipulation list acquisition unit 172 acquires a list of prohibited vehicle manipulations (a predetermined manipulation list) which is part of the use contract for the vehicle 100 from the vehicle management server 400 through wireless communication”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated at least one of a vehicle operation state of the vehicle or a running state of the vehicle as taught by Hioki in the environmental data as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to control a list of “vehicle manipulations” (see [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Oishi in view of Hioki teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the limitations except where underlined:
the first data processing device is a vehicle management server,
the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle,
the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device, (A target sound signature are device related audio features, including a target sound range of the device see [0050]: “A target sound signature may include a sound signature of a target sound wave that an audio reproduction device 104 aims to reproduce… A target sound range may include a range within which a target sound signature lies in. In one embodiment, a target sound range has a lower limit and an upper limit”; the part in a sound profile that emulates the target sound signature is audio feature data, and the first device data is audio feature data, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”)
the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of
the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle (a played sound wave that can be captured by microphone suggests the sound wave is output from sound transducing apparatus e.g. loudspeakers, the played sound wave is the test sound, and the microphone captured sound wave is sound collected by microphones; see [0050]: “the monitoring module 204 receives microphone data recording a sound wave played by the audio reproduction device 104 from the microphone 122, and determines a sound quality of the sound wave using the microphone data”; audio feature data in a sound profile is obtained based on the test sound from the loudspeakers and the sound from microphones, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”),
sound data corresponding to the sound collected by the microphones is transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server, which analyzes the sound data and estimates the audio features of the vehicle audio device (The microphone is on the Audio Reproduction Device, the monitoring module as part of the tuning module receiving microphone data can be on a device that’s different from the Audio Reproduction Device, e.g. client device, therefore sound data collected by the microphone is transmitted from one device to another, where the emulated target sound signature, i.e. audio features are estimated by the equalization module in the same tuning module, see [0050]: “the monitoring module 204 receives microphone data recording a sound wave played by the audio reproduction device 104 from the microphone 122, and determines a sound quality of the sound wave using the microphone data”; also see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”).
Oishi does not teach the first data processing device is a vehicle management server, the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, the underlined wherein “the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device”, “the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle”, and “sound data corresponding to the sound collected by the microphones is transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server, which analyzes the sound data and estimates the audio features of the vehicle audio device”
Hioki teaches a vehicle management server, a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, a
vehicle, data is transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server (the vehicle management server 400 is a vehicle management server, the vehicle 100 requesting the vehicle management server 400 to notify the owner is data being transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server, see [0036]: “the vehicle 100 requests the vehicle management server 400 to notify the owner that the prohibited vehicle manipulation has been performed", see [0049]: “the vehicle management server 400) via the network using a mobile communication service such as 3G (3 Generation) or Long Term Evolution (LTE)”, also see Fig. 1; an audio and video device is a vehicle audio device included in a vehicle, see [0015]: “Examples of the facility in the vehicle include…an audio and video device”),
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a vehicle management server, a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, a vehicle and data being transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server as taught by Hioki in the apparatus as taught by Oishi so that 1) the first data processing device is a vehicle management server, 2) the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, 3) the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device, 4) the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle, 5) sound data corresponding to the sound collected by the microphones is transmitted from the vehicle to the vehicle management server, which analyzes the sound data and estimates the audio features of the vehicle audio device. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to control “vehicle manipulation” (see [0036], [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Oishi in view of Hioki teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 103 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the audio reproduction device (one pre-programmed sound profile is audio feature data of audio features of the audio reproduction device, and the first device data is one pre-programmed sound profile, see [0008]: “the device data including…at least one pre-programmed sound profile configured for the model of the audio reproduction device”).
Oishi further teaches the limitation except where underlined:
the first data processing device is a vehicle management server,
the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle,
the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device (A target sound signature are device related audio features, including a target sound range of the device see [0050]: “A target sound signature may include a sound signature of a target sound wave that an audio reproduction device 104 aims to reproduce… A target sound range may include a range within which a target sound signature lies in. In one embodiment, a target sound range has a lower limit and an upper limit”;
the part in a sound profile that emulates the target sound signature is audio feature data, and the first device data is audio feature data, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”),
the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle (a played sound wave that can be captured by microphone suggests the sound wave is output from sound transducing apparatus e.g. loudspeakers, the played sound wave is the test sound, and the microphone captured sound wave is sound collected by microphones; see [0050]: “the monitoring module 204 receives microphone data recording a sound wave played by the audio reproduction device 104 from the microphone 122, and determines a sound quality of the sound wave using the microphone data”; audio feature data in a sound profile is obtained based on the test sound from the loudspeakers and the sound from microphones, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”),
the vehicle audio device analyzes the sound collected by the microphones and estimates the audio features (generating a sound profile includes analyzing the sound collected by the microphones, and emulating the target sound signature is estimating the audio features, see [0062]: “the equalization module 208 receives data indicating a sound wave reproduced by the audio reproduction device 104 does not match a target sound signature, and generates a sound profile to emulate the target sound signature”),
the vehicle transmits the audio feature data corresponding to the estimated audio features to the vehicle management server (audio feature data in a sound profile can be transmitted, see [0027]-[0028]: “the tuning data 152 includes data describing a sound profile…the tuning data 152 may be generated by the tuning module 112 operable in the client device 106. The tuning data 152 may be transmitted from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180),
Oishi does not teach the first data processing device is a vehicle management server, the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, the underlined wherein “the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle”, “the vehicle audio device analyzes the sound collected by the microphones and estimates the audio features”, and “the vehicle transmits the audio feature data corresponding to the estimated audio features to the vehicle management server”.
Hioki teaches a vehicle management server, a vehicle audio device included in
the vehicle, a vehicle, and the vehicle transmits data to the vehicle management server (the vehicle management server 400 is a vehicle management server, the vehicle 100 requesting the vehicle management server 400 to notify the owner is the vehicle transmitting data to the vehicle management server, see [0036]: “the vehicle 100 requests the vehicle management server 400 to notify the owner that the prohibited vehicle manipulation has been performed", see [0049]: “the vehicle management server 400) via the network using a mobile communication service such as 3G (3 Generation) or Long Term Evolution (LTE)”, also see Fig. 1; an audio and video device is a vehicle audio device included in a vehicle , see [0015]: “Examples of the facility in the vehicle include…an audio and video device”),
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a vehicle management server, a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, a vehicle and the vehicle transmitting data to the vehicle management server as taught by Hioki in the apparatus as taught by Oishi so that 1) the first data processing device is a vehicle management server, 2) the user device is a vehicle audio device included in the vehicle, 3) the first device data is audio feature data of audio features of the vehicle audio device, 4) the audio feature data being obtained from test sound output from loudspeakers of the vehicle audio device and sound collected by microphones disposed in the vehicle, 5) the vehicle audio device analyzes the sound collected by the microphones and estimates the audio features, 6) the vehicle transmits the audio feature data corresponding to the estimated audio features to the vehicle management server. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to control “vehicle manipulation” (see [0036], [0060]).
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1) in view of Baalu et al. (US 20130179535 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the first data processing device can distribute the audio data via a network,
and the user device is configured to play the audio data via the network (a sound profile can include the audio content data received by the controller and processed by the equalization module, both the controller and the equalization module are part of the tuning module, which can be on the first data processing device, e.g. client device, see Fig.2, see [0071-0072]: “The controller 202 receives 404 content data describing audio content played on the audio reproduction device 104… The equalization module 208 determines 414 the tuning data 152 including a sound profile for the audio reproduction device 104 based on …the content data…”; the sound profile as part of the tuning data can be transmitted, i.e. distributed via a network to the processing unit 180, which is part of the audio reproduction device, see Fig. 1, also see [0027]-[0028]: “the tuning data 152 includes data describing a sound profile…the tuning data 152 may be generated by the tuning module 112 operable in the client device 106. The tuning data 152 may be transmitted from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 included in the audio reproduction device 104 via signal line 103 or the wireless communication link 105… the tuning module 112 generates and transmits the tuning data 152 from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 via a wired connection…”, the audio reproduction device can be the user device and play a sound wave, based on the audio content data, i.e. audio data, received from the network, see [0008]: “…monitoring audio content played in the audio reproduction device”, also see [0050]: “the monitoring module 204 receives microphone data recording a sound wave played by the audio reproduction device 104 from the microphone 122, and determines a sound quality of the sound wave using the microphone data”).
Oishi does not teach a distribution server configured to distribute the audio data via a network, and the audio data distributed played by the user device is from the distribution server via the network.
Baalu teaches a distribution server transmitting audio data via a network to an audio device inside car (CAS 502 is the music/audio data distribution server, see Fig.6, also see [0006]: “…a cloud access server (CAS)…”, further see [0037]: “the audio content may be "tuned" at the CAS 502 in the cloud network 518. It is noted that in other implementations, additional servers dedicated to tuning and/or transcoding original audio content may be present in the cloud network 518…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a distribution server for audio data distribution over a network as taught by Baalu as the first data processing device as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system so that user device can play the audio data distributed from the distribution server via the network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “facilitate the underlying audio content at a server based upon playing device and listening environment” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Oishi in view of Baalu teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 4’s 103 rejection.
Oishi also teaches one genre of the audio data can be in part of a pre-programmed sound profile, which can be included in the audio property data. (see [0057]: “a pre-programmed sound profile may be configured for a specific genre of music. For example, if the audio signal is related to rock music, the equalization module 208 filters the audio signal using a pre-programmed sound profile customized for rock music”).
Regarding claim 13, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi does not teach the second device data indicates performance of the second data processing device, and the second data processing device is one of a vehicle audio device or a smartphone.
Baalu teaches device related data indicating performance, e.g. bandwidth available and internal memory etc. (see [0034]- [0035]), and a vehicle audio device (see Fig 6).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the vehicle audio device and its performance related device data as taught by Baalu as the second data processing device and second device data respectively as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system so that user device can play the audio data distributed from the distribution server via the network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “adjust the transmission rate of the audio content to the audio device” and “avoid downloading audio content that is larger than that amount” (see [0034]-[ 0035]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1) in view of Blamey et al. (US 20100062713 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Claim 6 recites all the limitation included in claim 1, except the new limitation as highlighted and there is no “second device data…” category, see the rejection in claim 1.
A parameter definition apparatus for audio processing of audio data by which sound effects are imparted to the audio data, the parameter definition apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing a program: and
at least one processor that executes the program to:
acquire the audio data;
acquire from a first data processing device, which is different from a user device configured to
use the audio data, at least two categories of data from among the following categories of data:
environmental data indicative of information related to an environment where the audio data is to be played:
first device data indicative of information related to the user device: and
audio property data indicative of information related to the audio data:
define the parameter for the audio processing of the audio data based on the acquired at least
two categories of data:
process the acquired audio data based on the defined parameter for the audio processing; and
transmit the processed audio data to the user device so that the processed audio data is
playable by the user device.
Oishi also teaches acquire the audio data (the tuning module acquires audio data, see [0022]:
“The microphone 122 transmits the microphone data describing the recorded sound wave to the tuning module 112”).
Oishi further teaches process the acquired audio data based on the defined parameter for
the audio processing (the audio reproduction device processes acquired audio data based on the tuning data includes the sound profile, i.e. the defined parameter, see [0027]-[0028]: “the tuning data 152 includes data describing a sound profile…the tuning data 152 may be generated by the tuning module 112 operable in the client device 106. The tuning data 152 may be transmitted from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 included in the audio reproduction device 104 via signal line 103 or the wireless communication link 105… the tuning module 112 generates and transmits the tuning data 152 from the client device 106 to the processing unit 180 via a wired connection…causing the processing unit 180 to update a sound profile applied in the audio reproduction device 104 based on the received tuning data 152”).
Oishi does not teach the processed audio data is transmitted to another device to be played.
Blamey teaches transmitting the processed audio data to the user device for playback (audio data is performed on the base device, then is transmitted to the headset, i.e. user device for playback, see:” The base device has a processor which can carry the burden of any or all processing”, Abstract, see Fig. 5 and 6).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated base and user device setup as taught by Baalu into the apparatus as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “off-board signal processing capabilities” for the user device (see [0002]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1) in view of Kuper (US 20180364974 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi teaches two other devices other than the user device, however, Oishi does not teach the second data processing device with second device data associated is different from the user device.
Kuper teaches a plurality of audio/data processing devices, any of which that’s different from the user device and be the second data processing device (see [0061]: “…one or more of the playback device 200 of FIG. 2”, also see [0027]: “The playback device 200 may include a processor 202, software components 204, memory 206, audio processing components 208, audio amplifier(s) 210, speaker(s) 212, and a network interface 214 including wireless interface(s) 216 and wired interface(s) 218”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted data processing devices as taught by Kuper as the second data processing device as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system so that the second data processing device is different from the user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “be paired or grouped with” within a zone “and/or renamed if so desired” (see [0041]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 20140270254 A1) in view of Kallai et al. (US 20130245798 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Oishi teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Oishi also teaches the audio data is a song, the audio property data includes at least song content identifying at least a musical genre of the song (the audio content, i.e. audio data is a song, information in the song content that can be used to determine a musical genre can be in part of the audio property data, see [0048]: “…determines a genre of the audio content (e.g., rock music, pop music, jazz music, an audio book, etc.)”), and
Oishi does not teach the song content further identifies at least one of a song name or an artist name of the song.
Kallai teaches the song content further identifies at least one of a song name or an artist name of the song. (metadata containing title and author is part of the song content, see [0025]: “the music file from the online music service usually includes a metadata file 114, in which information about the music, such as title and author”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted metadata including a song name and an artist name as taught by Kuper in the apparatus as taught by Oishi. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “assist a user identifying and selecting a piece of music” (see [0025]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights