DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-20 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.
As to claim 19, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the computing device.” Parent claim 1 is instead directed to “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium.”
Claim 20 is rejected for depending on claim 19 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2017/0048615 A1 – cited in IDS), hereinafter “Son,” in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0068670 – cited in IDS), hereinafter “Lu.”
As to claim 1, Son discloses a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations (¶0031) comprising:
analyzing a parameter of an audio signal associated with a first volume level to determine a classification group associated with the audio signal (¶0072-0074, Figs. 1b and 2. Processor checks the property information of the audio signal. Property information includes number of channels, audio quality, audio type (voice, music, etc.), and volume level.);
determining an input volume of the audio signal (¶0072-0074, Figs. 1b and 2. Processor checks volume level of the audio signal.);
applying a compression value to the audio signal, wherein the compression value modifies the second volume level to a third volume level that satisfies a target volume threshold (¶0074, Figs. 1b and 2. “The processor 160 may adjust the dynamic range corresponding to the volume level of the audio signal in such a way of increasing the dynamic range when the energy level of the input audio signal is greater than a predetermined energy level and of decreasing the dynamic range when it is less than or equal to the predetermined level.” The examiner takes official notice that using a compressor is a common tool for dynamic range control and is well-known in the art.).
Son does not expressly disclose a neural network; and
in response to the determining the classification group and the input volume, applying a gain value to the audio signal, wherein the gain value modifies the first volume level to a second volume level.
Lu discloses a neural network (Lu, ¶0108. “The audio classifier 200 is for classifying an audio signal into at least one audio type in real time. It automatically identifies the audio types of the content on playback. Any audio classification technologies, such as through signal processing, machine learning, and pattern recognition, can be applied to identify the audio content.” Neural network is a type of machine learning.); and
in response to the determining the classification group and the input volume, applying a gain value to the audio signal, wherein the gain value modifies the first volume level to a second volume level (Lu, ¶0018 and ¶0264. Volume leveler adjusts the volume level in a continuous manner based on the content type as identified. Son, ¶0074 already discloses the possibility of applying gain to the corresponding volume level to increase or decrease the volume of the audio signal.).
Son and Lu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to audio classification.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the volume, as taught by Lu. The motivation would have been to prevent the user from having to adjust the volume frequently (Lu, ¶0263).
As to claim 2, Son in view of Lu does not expressly disclose wherein applying a compression value to the audio signal further comprises: (i) if the gain value increases, the compression value is decreased; and (ii) if the gain value decreases, the compression value is increased.
However, Son (¶0074) does disclose applying gain to and adjusting the dynamic range of the audio signal.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to inversely adjust compression and gain. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try, choosing from the finite solutions of having the compression increase when the gain is increased, decrease when the gain is increased, or not adjusted when the gain is increased. All of which would have a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 3, Son in view of Lu discloses wherein the set of operations further comprises determining if a source of the input audio signal has changed (Son, ¶0071-0072. Audio signal detected during voice call, music playback, etc. The processor determining property information based on voice or music implies that a change in source (voice call or music playback) is determined.).
As to claim 5, Son in view of Lu discloses wherein the classification group comprises at least one of: (1) a genre of music represented by the input audio signal, (2) a time period of music represented by the input audio signal, and (3) a presence of an instrument in music represented by the input audio signal (Lu, ¶0118 and ¶0196. Music classified based on genre, instruments, tempo, etc.).
The motivation would have been for more specified adjustments.
As to claim 6, Son in view of Lu discloses wherein the set of operations further comprises determining a classification gain value based on the classification group and the input volume (Lu, ¶0018 and ¶0264. Volume leveler adjusts the volume level in a continuous manner based on the content type as identified.).
The motivation is the same as claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 17 are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under claims 9 using the same motivation as claims 2-3 and 5-6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under claim 17 using the same motivation as claim 2 above.
Claim 19 is rejected under claim 1 using the same motivation as claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8, 12 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695