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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 lacks a linking term such as wherein or comprising; Claim 11 recites “an safety audio source,” this is not in keeping with the other recitations of a safety audio source in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites “an amount of audio samples from the safety audio source stored meets a threshold level,” the recitation of “stored” introduces ambiguity into the claim and as to whether the recitation modifies the audio source or some absent object, the claim is thus considered indefinite. Claim 7, 8, 10 recite a non-safety audio source in the singular; the non-safety audio sources of the parent claim are recited in the plural and no singular non-safety audio “source” bears antecedent. Examiner will presume a typographical error. Claim 11 recites “a control circuit,” and subsequently “a control circuit arranged to perform…”; the recitation introduces indefiniteness as the recited “a control circuit arranged to perform,” can not be determined as separate or unified with the earlier recited “a control circuit,” particular in regard to the subsequent recitation in claims dependent therefrom. Claim 13 recites “the control circuit,” and it can not be determined which “control circuit” recited in claim 11 the recitation resolves. Claim 15, 16, 17 recite a streaming recites “the streaming sequencer,” and “the streaming control circuit,” these recitations lack clear antecedent and will be presumed to resolve the stream sequencer of claim 11 and one of the variously recited control circuits of claim 11. Claim 17 additionally recites “other audio samples to transfer. The “other audio samples,” lack antecedent and it can not be determined which samples are determined thereby. Examiner will presume the recitation to reference subsequent audio samples. Claim 20 recites “the stream descriptor register,” whereas claim 11 recites “stream descriptor control registers.” Examiner will presume a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, 9-17, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George: 20220083486 hereinafter Geo further in view of Jones: 20150256276.
Regarding claim 1
Geo teaches:
A method for transferring blocks of audio samples in an audio system (Geo: Abstract; ¶ 4, 27: a system for controlling timing of transfers between sample buffers in an audio system such as by controlling transfers to and from audio peripherals), the method comprising:
receiving respective streams of audio samples from a first, higher priority, audio source and second, lower priority, audio sources at a same time (Geo: Abstract; 4, 9, 27-29, 31, 43; Fig 2: system receives and arbitrates between multiple active channels or multiple active peripherals; said channels comprising audio channels operable at different priority levels based on desired latency tolerance, Quality of Service (QoS), etc.; that is “QoS information that may specify a target channel data rate and transfer threshold level,” for each of a plurality of audio channels, peripherals, sources, etc.);
wherein a sampling frequency of the audio samples of the first audio source is the same as the sampling frequency of the audio samples of the second audio sources (Geo: ¶ 39-43, 48; Fig 2: transfer among DMA channels accomplished by a plurality of DMA buffers operable to receive samples at a target data rate; typically audio data rates of a processing system are uniform such that conversion for processing is not mandated);
determining whether the audio samples which are received are from the first audio source or second audio sources (Geo: ¶ 39-43, etc.; Fig 2: system determines QoS information including priority threshold for a plurality of first, second, etc. channels, operates in response to same, that is “QoS information that may specify a target channel data rate and transfer threshold level”); and
performing a first memory operation to transfer blocks of the audio samples from the first audio source to an audio processor in a first memory channel and a second memory operation to transfer blocks of the audio samples from the second audio sources to the audio processor in a second memory channel based on the determination (Geo: ¶ 151-154; fig 2, 9: system operates to transfer samples from a peripheral such as an audio peripheral along a dedicated channel such as an audio channel, to thereby fill a buffer; said transfer based on a transfer descriptor comprising QoS information including data rate and priority information by which the first, second, etc. audio is transferred).
Geo does not explicitly discuss a method, system, etc. wherein a sampling frequency of the audio samples of the first audio source is the same as the sampling frequency of the audio samples of the second audio source nor a method, etc. operable for determining whether the audio samples which are received are from the safety audio source or non-safety audio sources.
With regard to a system wide sample rate among devices where all of the devices share the same sampling frequency—Examiner considers such a feature obvious to try. Device synchrony upon sample rate is a well-recognized problem in the art and necessary for managing communication among connected digital devices; in this regard there are a finite number of solutions, typically the devices of a system share a sampling rate; in additional cases the devices operate upon a schema wherein diverse sampling rates of diverse devices is managed either upon the devices or upon a central processor; one of ordinary skill in the art could have, can and do pursue such solutions with reasonable expectations of success and as such the common sampling rate is considered obvious.
With regard to the recited devices bearing particular “safety” and “non-safety” data the recited priority and QoS data of Geo is considered substantially similar of operation particularly to prioritize the discussed control and/or guidance system data as more critical to operations than entertainment system data (Geo: ¶ 166); but Geo is absent metadata parameters bearing such indicia. In a related field of endeavor Jones teaches a system and method comprising monitoring a plurality of incoming audio streaming devices to determine the presence of emergency, safety, etc. alert data and assign higher priority values to said alert data (Jones: ¶ 50, 58; Fig 2-4: system assigns a priority value based on a safety determination and assigns no particular priority value to non-safety data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Jones taught assignment of safety, emergency, etc. priority values to assign higher priority to safety oriented stream such as the control and guidance streams of Geo and to assign very low or low priority values to non-safety oriented streams such as the entertainment streams of Geo for at least the purpose of interrupting or pre-empting the delivery to non-safety, entertainment, etc. streams to thereby emphasize safety data to a driver or passenger within the Geo vehicular system and for at least the purpose of prioritizing driver and passenger safety thereby; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second memory operations are direct memory access (DMA) operations executed in parallel with each other, the first memory operation and the second memory operation are separate memory operations, and the first memory channel and the second memory channel are separate memory channels (Geo: ¶ 43, 54; Fig 2: plural DMA operations upon plural discrete DMA channels between a peripheral and discrete DMA memory buffers of a processing device operable in parallel). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, further comprising constructing a linked list indicative of transfer of the blocks of the audio samples from only the non-safety audio sources; and wherein performing the second memory operation comprises performing the second memory operation based on the linked list. Examiner takes official notice that the utility of maintaining tables of information in the form of a linked list was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprise an obvious inclusion such as for the purpose of maintaining data sources and data types representing safety and non-safety data in concert with delivery preferences thereof; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is thus considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, further comprising constructing an element indicative of transfer of the blocks of the audio samples from the safety audio source and no other audio sources (Geo: ¶ 6, 35, 37; Fig 2: each of plurality of peripheral/buffer DMA channels comprise a distinct and dedicated channel for accomplishing transfer of samples from the particular peripheral to a buffer dedicated thereto, such as under direction of a transfer descriptor and other QoS parameters); and wherein performing the first memory operation comprises performing the first memory operation based only on the element, the element having no pointers to other elements (Geo: id. and ¶ 56: each distinct, dedicated, etc. channel comprises dedicated read and/or write pointers). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that audio samples are received from the safety audio source is based on an attribute of a stream descriptor in a stream descriptor register (Geo: ¶ 6, 35, 37; Fig 2: such as a QoS, priority, data rate, etc. descriptors for the first channel). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the memory operations further comprises performing the first memory operation when an amount of audio samples from the safety audio source stored meets a threshold level (Geo: ¶ 43, etc.: performance of operations by the system operable with respect to a threshold transfer level; said level held in QoS information for the first channel). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the memory operations further comprises performing the second memory operation when an amount of audio samples from each of the non-safety audio source meets a threshold level (Geo: ¶ 43, etc.: performance of operations by the system operable with respect to a threshold transfer level; said level held in QoS information for the second, etc. channel). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, receiving respective streams of audio samples from a safety audio source and a non-safety audio source comprises receiving the streams via a serial data stream (Geo: Abstract; ¶ 162: system operates to receive streaming data, samples, etc. from peripherals, such as audio peripherals, such as over a serial bus). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the audio samples of the non-safety audio source or safety audio source to a speaker or amplifier (Geo: ¶ 162, 147: various types of connected peripherals include audio peripherals such as for output of transferred audio data). The claim is considered obvious over Geo as modified by Jones as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Geo and/or Jones to the modified device of Geo and Jones; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Geo teaches:
An audio transfer control circuit (Geo: ¶ 23; Fig 1: such as DMA control circuit 130 in concert with processing circuit 110) comprising:
a plurality of stream descriptor control registers arranged to indicate whether a respective stream of a plurality of streams received at a same time originates from a first, higher priority audio source or second, lower priority audio source (Geo: Abstract; 4, 9, 27-29, 31, 43; Fig 2: system receives and arbitrates between multiple active channels or multiple active peripherals; said channels comprising audio channels operable at different priority levels based on desired latency tolerance, Quality of Service (QoS), etc.; that is “QoS information that may specify a target channel data rate and transfer threshold level,” for each of a plurality of audio channels, peripherals, sources, etc.);
a control circuit (Geo: ¶ 23; Fig 1: such as DMA control circuit 130 in concert with processing circuit 110);
a stream sequencer arranged to provide to the control circuit the indications of whether the respective streams of the plurality of streams originates from the first, higher priority audio source or second, lower priority audio source and output a signal to perform transfers of blocks of audio samples from the first, higher priority audio source and second, lower priority audio source (Geo: ¶ 39-43, etc.; Fig 2: system determines QoS information including priority threshold for a plurality of first, second, etc. channels, operates in response to same, that is “QoS information that may specify a target channel data rate and transfer threshold level”); and
a control circuit (Geo: Fig 1, 2: such as control unit 234 of DMA control circuit 130) arranged to perform a first memory operation to transfer blocks of the audio samples from the safety audio source to an audio processor in a first memory channel based on the output of the signal and perform a second memory operation to transfer blocks of the audio samples from the non-safety audio sources to the audio processor in a second memory channel based on the output of the signal (Geo: ¶ 151-154; fig 2, 9: system operates to transfer samples from a peripheral such as an audio peripheral along a dedicated channel such as an audio channel, to thereby fill a buffer; said transfer based on a transfer descriptor comprising QoS information including data rate and priority information by which the first, second, etc. audio is transferred),.
wherein a sampling frequency of the audio samples of the safety audio source is the same as the sampling frequency of the audio samples of the non-safety audio sources (Geo: ¶ 39-43, 48; Fig 2: transfer among DMA channels accomplished by a plurality of DMA buffers operable to receive samples at a target data rate; typically, audio data rates of a processing system are uniform such that conversion for processing is not mandated).
Geo does not explicitly discuss a method, system, etc. wherein a sampling frequency of the audio samples of the first audio source is the same as the sampling frequency of the audio samples of the second audio source nor a method, etc. operable for determining whether the audio samples which are received are from the safety audio source or non-safety audio sources.
With regard to a system wide sample rate among devices where all of the devices share the same sampling frequency—Examiner considers such a feature obvious to try. Device synchrony upon sample rate is a well-recognized problem in the art and necessary for managing communication among connected digital devices; in this regard there are a finite number of solutions, typically the devices of a system share a sampling rate; in additional cases the devices operate upon a schema wherein diverse sampling rates of diverse devices is managed either upon the devices or upon a central processor; one of ordinary skill in the art could have, can and do pursue such solutions with reasonable expectations of success and as such the common sampling rate is considered obvious.
With regard to the recited devices bearing particular “safety” and “non-safety” data the recited priority and QoS data of Geo is considered substantially similar of operation particularly to prioritize the discussed control and/or guidance system data as more critical to operations than entertainment system data (Geo: ¶ 166); but Geo is absent metadata parameters bearing such indicia. In a related field of endeavor Jones teaches a system and method comprising monitoring a plurality of incoming audio streaming devices to determine the presence of emergency, safety, etc. alert data and assign higher priority values to said alert data (Jones: ¶ 50, 58; Fig 2-4: system assigns a priority value based on a safety determination and assigns no particular priority value to non-safety data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Jones taught assignment of safety, emergency, etc. priority values to assign higher priority to safety oriented stream such as the control and guidance streams of Geo and to assign very low or low priority values to non-safety oriented streams such as the entertainment streams of Geo for at least the purpose of interrupting or pre-empting the delivery to non-safety, entertainment, etc. streams to thereby emphasize safety data to a driver or passenger within the Geo vehicular system and for at least the purpose of prioritizing driver and passenger safety thereby; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3, 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The audio transfer control circuit of claim 11, wherein the streaming sequencer receives an indication from the control circuit when the first and second memory operation are complete which causes the streaming sequencer to indicate to the control circuit other audio samples to transfer (Geo: Abstract; ¶ 8, 32, etc.: completion of a process advances the system to a next process, set of samples, frame, etc.).
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The audio transfer control circuit of claim 11, wherein the stream descriptor register further provides an indication of a sampling frequency of the audio samples of respective audio sources (Geo: ¶ 39-43, 48; Fig 2: transfer among DMA channels accomplished by a plurality of DMA buffers operable to receive samples at a target data rate).
Claims 8, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George: 20220083486 hereinafter Geo further in view of Jones: 20150256276 as applied to claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 20 supra and further in view of Chane: 20190313053.
Regarding claim 8
Geo in view of Jones teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, further comprising scheduling a third memory operation to transfer blocks of additional audio samples of the non-safety audio source from the audio processor in a third memory channel and a fourth memory operation to transfer blocks of audio samples of the safety audio source from the audio processor in a fourth memory channel (please see claim 1, 11 supra: such as by processing additional streams from additional peripherals by the system, method discussed in regard to claim 1 supra).
Geo in view of Jones does not discuss the utility of an unpacker.
In a related field of endeavor Chane teaches a system to convey a plurality of media streams to a plurality of outputs (Chane: Abstract) comprising processing an intermediate stream using a deserializer module and an unpacking module for the purpose of enhancing functional safety of a vehicle by providing additional analysis in concert with ISO 26262 (Chane: ¶ 36; Fig 3, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize an unpacking unit such as that taught or suggested by Chane to determine safety data, safety metadata, etc. within one or more incoming streams of the Geo in view of Jones system and method for at least the purpose of enhancing the functional safety of a vehicle by classifying risk based on additional analysis of an incoming stream to aid in the classification of the presence or absence of safety data and thereby display or otherwise provide prioritized data based thereon; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20210281569—linked list of attribute-value pairs drives determination, delivery, etc. of emergency alert data.
20190051060—selective delivery dynamics for determined safety data.
20120043808—system for managing reception, delivery, etc. of data upon diverse sample rates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights